The Terror Finance Blog

A True Iranian Reformer, and His Movement?

2009-07-09T19:47:49-07:00

Who is Roozbeh Farahanipour, and what is so striking about his apparent return to Iran?

By Dr. Andrew G. Bostom and Alyssa A. Lappen
American Thinker | Jul. 9, 2009

Pooya Dayanim is an intrepid lawyer, writer, and human rights activist who served Muhammad Khatami a subpoena for his role in the torture and detention of innocent Iranian Jews, while the former Iranian President attended a Council on American Islamic Relations dinner in Arlington, VA on September 8, 2006. Late Sunday July 5, 2009 Pooya sent me an e-mail conveying a remarkable press release from the secular Iranian Marze Por Gohar (MPG) Party (The Glorious Frontiers Party — taken from the first line of the “O’ Iran” National Anthem. [O Iran, O Glorious Frontiers]).

The press release announced that Roozbeh Farahanipour, a prominent leader of the July, 1999 Iranian student uprising, and other leaders and members of the MPG were returning to Iran to organize demonstrations commemorating the tenth anniversary of July 9th. Arguing that competing Islamic Republic of Iran factions were, “…trying to confine the present movement within the tight Islamic and Constitutional limits, preventing cries for free elections and a democratic Iran being heard…,”the announcement released by the MPG — which advocates a secular, democratic republic-urged Iranian students and the general public to re-invigorate the suppressed June election protests with en masse demonstrations throughout Iran on July 9th.

Who is Roozbeh Farahanipour, and what is so striking about his apparent return to Iran?

Farahanipour, a trained lawyer, was the publisher and chief editor of a monthly journal dedicated to Iranian studies (emphasizing Zoroastrianism), from 1994 to 1998. Simultaneously, he also founded the “Roozbeh Publishing” to further disseminate research focusing on pre-Islamic Iran.

Soon after his monthly journal on Iranology was banned, Farahanipour became the chief editor of the weekly Nedayeh Ghomess (”The call of Ghomess,” Ghomess being one of the capitals of ancient Iran). Only five issues of Nedayeh Ghomess had been produced under his editorship when, upon attempting to publish the names of 57 serial murder victims, his efforts were prevented by the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of Iran and other affiliated elements of the Iranian government. Subsequently, Farahanipour, joined by some of his Nationalist peers organized the “Hezbeh Marzeh Por-Gohar” and “The National Society of Journalists,” in July of 1998, serving on the executive committees in both organizations. Defiantly independent from the Islamic government and its affiliates, these organizations encountered intense opposition, threats, and violent suppression from militias associated with the Islamic Republic.

Under Farahanipour’s leadership, the Marze Por Gohar Party spearheaded the pro-democracy movement of July, 1999. Shortly after The Ministry of Intelligence proclaimed the MPG an “illegal Party,” while denouncing Farahanipour as “one of the leaders of the unrest,”

Farahanipour was seized from his home during a raid by armed Islamic militias. Farahanipour spent 26 days in solitary confinement while being brutally interrogated by the Ministry of Intelligence and the revolutionary court. As recounted in a brief memoir of his imprisonment, while en route to the first interrogation, Farahanipour heard one of the Islamic regime interrogators utter, “..my, my, my this one is a goner, he’s turned into a Zoroastrian, is in contact with Zionists Jews, has indecent relations with the opposite sex, works with Afghans, even the Armenian saboteurs love him.” Thus Farahanipour concluded, “I thought I was about to be executed.” Ultimately spared, Farahanipour was temporarily released on bail. But following eleven months of additional interrogations and court proceedings, and considering the plight of other activists who without exception received unusually long prison sentences, he decided to flee Iran.

Farahanipour’s compelling personal biography, and uncompromised writings and public statements (examples here, here, and here), demonstrate his firm commitment to profound reforms — indeed a wrenching transformation of Iranian society — utterly rejecting both any strain of the Shi’ite theocratic rule (most notably its present incarnation), which has characterized Iran since 1502, and Iran’s more benevolent (if still brutal) and transient experiment with a Western leaning, secular-oriented but autocratic “constitutional” monarchy, from 1925 to 1979.

The July 5, 2009 MPG press release also encouraged journalists to contact MPG Advisor Faryar Nikbakht, and pursuant to that invitation, Alyssa Lappen interviewed Mr. Nikbakht, yesterday, July 8, 2009. During the interview, Nikbakht further elucidated the MPG’s ideals and goals, consistent with what Farahanipour has expounded previously. Nikbakht’s thoughtful responses about the prospects for reform in Iran contrast starkly with the unfettered emotionalism on display elsewhere. Odd, non-sequitur speculations about the murderous former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi somehow morphing into an acceptable politician, are conspicuously absent from Nikbakht’s statements. Instead, although hopeful, and imbued with measured optimism, Nikbakht acknowledges the very inchoate nature of the contemporary Iranian reform movement, and openly professes having no idea about the extent to which MPG’s vision for a truly secular, democratic Iran is shared by the Iranian populace. However, one of Nikbakht’s most lucid responses demonstrates that he rejects the anti-women’s rights agenda of Mousavi’s equally odious wife (this erstwhile “Lady Byrd” Mousavi) — which has been almost entirely ignored by mainstream media pundits. Alyssa Lappen’s interview is presented below:

Alyssa A. Lappen: Does the Marze Por Gohar (MPG) party advocate fully replacing Iran’s current shari’a-based constitution with a secular document, rejecting Islam and Islamic requirements for civil laws to align with Sharia? For example, do you reject any legal inferiority for women and non-Muslims?

MPG Advisor Faryar Nikbakht: The answer is yes. However, it has to be emphasized that it is not a position against beliefs — but more like a separation of church and state.

AAL: So then, the MPG party supports equal rights for women.

FN: Yes, certainly. Women compose half of the human species, our society included. It is simply unacceptable [to have] laws and a society in which mothers and sisters do not enjoy the same rights [as men]. It is unacceptable even [by] 20th century [standards, and this is 2009].

AAL: Does MPG reject the 1990 Cairo Declaration of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) — the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam that Iran’s Islamic Republic spearheaded? Does MPG favor true models of equality like the US Bill of Rights and 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which aren’t subservient to shari’a?

FN: I am not too familiar with this [Cairo Declaration]. But … any document that would endorse discrimination in any way among the people is unacceptable. Certainly. Yes.

These kinds of attempts are made very consciously to erode the popularity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is increasingly accepted by people worldwide. It is a conscious attempt to reverse history. Any document that discriminates based on gender — on beliefs, on religion, on race and so on — is unacceptable. Certainly.

AAL: I suppose if you are a Mullah that would problematic.

FN: Yes. And not only for Mullahs. Also for people with fanatic beliefs in their religion and ideology, who don’t want other people to share equal rights.

[But] even among Muslims, [in Iran there is] huge discrimination. [O]nce the fanatics are in power, even regular Muslims — traditional, regular people — always live under some kind of threat due to enforcement of extra legal issues….

AAL: MPG’s advocacy of secular change seems completely opposed to the ideology espoused by Mir Hussein Mousavi.

FN: He is a loyal child of the [Islamic] revolution. While he was Prime Minister [Oct. 1981- Aug. 1989], [Iran conducted] the biggest massacres of political prisoners and [imposed the most] censorship. For a guy like that to become a hero for freedom [in less than one month] sounds very fishy.

However, the post-election movement was very welcome to millions and millions of Iranians, including us.

AAL: How much support does MPG have in Iran?

FN: MPG is only one of many opposition parties that have struggled for at least 10 years to establish democratic principles among Iranians and young people. However, it is not a card holding party. Within Iran’s [current] system, it is almost impossible to have any legal party — to have a regular organization and activities. Therefore, MPG is not big in the sense of old, traditional parties. It is [only] one of many opposition parties active in Iran.

AAL: What is your sense from contacts in Iran? If new elections were held tomorrow, how much support would MPG garner?

FN: First, I am not an MPG member. I am an advisor — an MPG spokesman so long as [party co-founder] Roozbeh Farahanipour is on his dangerous journey in Iran to mark the 10th anniversary of the July 9, 1999 student uprising.

But I guess if Iran held new elections tomorrow, MPG would not get a huge vote. You need free flow of information and legal status to work, to get funding, just to proceed normally in politics. Iran’s only big parties right now are officially sanctioned by hard line rulers, supporting the fanatical discriminatory constitution. And a lot of sanctioned parties, [have been] denied legal rights even as we speak — let alone parties in the real opposition.

AAL: As difficult as it is to read the situation, do you think the people would support regime change?

FN: Well, we do not have exact numbers. But I would say most people in Iran would be content with some reform. The regime shows reluctance to [cede] the smallest demand. People realize that even [those] short term expectations are not attainable [under] this regime. It can be said that the vast majority of people are not actively in the streets for total regime change. They have smaller expectations and demands, which is very natural.

AAL: In other words, any change would be gradual.

FN: Yes, [even] raising the expectations [for change] will be gradual. In times like this, however, [that process] is much faster. [Expectation] grows by leaps and bounds. Certainly in the last three weeks, people’s expectations have grown [as much as might normally take] 20 years in a calm, controlled time. People have gone from total acquiescence and passivity to the borderline of regime change.

People have called for removal of supreme leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei], who [heads] a theocratic ruling team. In some places, around universities and in Tehran, they have voiced very harsh slogans against the Islamic regime. In Tehran this week, they were shouting, “Death to Islamic Republic.” There are not millions saying this. But this is the first time it has been heard. Groups of young people have local organizations and go through the streets. But these slogans have never been heard before.

AAL: Could a regime change actually make things worse?

FN: It has [already] gotten worse. In the short run it will get much worse. [To ensure Ahmadinijad's] survival, [in the face of mass] defiance of the supreme leader [and public] demands, [the regime] has begun a wave of crackdowns unprecedented [in the last] generation. More and more people are arrested every day. More and more laws are ignored. The Revolutionary Guard announced [July 7] that they’re in change of Iran’s security — above the courts and laws and local authorities. It has gotten worse.

[B]ut in the long run, I cannot believe that this [regime] can stand. I believe [that] the [newfound] courage people have obtained [since June 12], the force they’ve seen and felt, the power of their huge demonstrations — and because of world attention — this kind of military rule will not stand for long. There will be waves of demonstrations and defiance. I believe [things] cannot [return to what they were] four weeks ago. Probably after this crisis, even if the regime stays alive, things will change considerably.

AAL: Do you honestly think that Islamic rules would be relaxed?

FN: Yes, that would be a part of [the change]. Every day the regime is under rising pressure from below and other countries. Already, in the past years, some [Islamic] practices — from stoning [women in public], to hanging [people] by crane —- were abandoned or [moved] behind walls. This is [still] happening right now in other cities. Last week, they hung 5 or 6 demonstrators in the western city of Kermanshah. But these things have already been reduced, or at least hidden from public view. In the future, after a short period of harshness, this [relaxation] trend will continue.

AAL: Will MPG insist that Iran be a Persian state — where Shia Islam presently remains predominant, but not supremacist — so that Iranians of all faiths, and open agnostics or atheists will acquire full and equal social participation, with full and equal rights?

FN: Certainly. We want separation of church and state. [But besides] what MPG prefers, Iranian Muslims have had such huge doses of extreme religion forced on them that even people without political foundation — just for the sake of personal freedom — are now tilting to less and less religion. Coercive religion has been there for too long. So many Muslims in Iran do not even pray any more — not because they do not believe. They are sick and tired of pretenses [and coercion].

AAL: Will MPG repudiate requirements that non-Muslim women wear veils, and protect all women — especially Muslim women — from coercive attempts to enforce veiling?

FN: Coercive veiling is against our beliefs. Women should be free to go without a hijab or wear a hijab if they like. However women want to [dress], they should be free.

AAL: Persia was once predominantly Zoroastrian. Would MPG encourage a Zoroastrian revival?

FN: A government should not, and may not, advocate or discourage any religion. Everyone should be free to practice their religion. The government should not fund or propagate any religion. Such a government would [only] replace the present one…. Iran’s government now funds their own leaders and even population increase. So long as people support them, [the mullahs] engineer demographics. If any government were to encourage a different religion, that would be equally unfair.

AAL: What is the MPG position on the Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK)?

FN: This is my personal opinion. If the MEK wants to get on the train for democracy, they’ll have to open up and change their organizational mode [from seeking complete control]. It’s still a very rigid, disciplined, old style [Islamic socialist] party. They need to be less isolated and protective of their internal issues, easier to work with, and more attuned to the lives of ordinary, normal people.

AAL: Do Iranians now reject rigidity?

FN: The general Iranian population, of course, wants more liberalism and modernity in their lives.

AAL: It was courageous, — some might say foolhardy — for Farahanipour to go to Iran now. What does he think he can accomplish?

FN: Farahanipour was one of the original 1999 student uprising leaders. He sees his child has grown. He returned to visit his child on the 10th anniversary. He hopes to encourage and lead any part that he can, in the same fashion as before. He is calling for freedom, for free elections — and not just following the Mousavi wave, who are trying to confine this event to their own Islamic and factional criteria.

AAL: So now what?

FN: We are waiting tonight and tomorrow [July 9] to see if the 10th anniversary of Iran’s student uprising will be a massive protest — or sporadic hit and run demonstrations.

Banks Are Not Mere Bystanders

2009-07-01T18:21:23-07:00

By Ilan Weinglass

On behalf of Brett Wallace, I'm posting his recent study of the role the private sector can play in countering terrorism financing. An excerpt:

The best way to improve public-private cooperation between banks and law enforcement is to grant top-secret level clearances to a certain number of bank compliance offers in the United States. This would effectively set up a “secure channel” of information sharing between banks and law enforcement. According to the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Stuart Levey, much of the information held by law enforcement about whom and what to look for is classified. Intelligence agencies have an obligation to protect their sources and methods, making secrecy an imperative. Furthermore, law enforcement is often reticent about declassifying, or ‘downgrading’ intelligence in order to protect ongoing investigations. In addition to intelligence and investigatory concerns, individuals or companies will occasionally remain off OFAC’s list of designated entities due to policy considerations or diplomatic sensitivities.

You may download Brett's entire study here.

Russia the Asymmetric Threat: A Potent Mixture of Energy and Missiles

2009-06-30T18:43:51-07:00

I'm posting this on behalf of John Wood, regarding his new book, Russia the Asymmetric Threat: A Potent Mixture of Energy and Missiles

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

By John Wood

Introduction

The current economic crisis offers the Obama administration a window of opportunity to embark upon a course of constructive engagement - reset. Mutual self interest in the arms control arena and the energy sphere should motivate both sides to cooperate.

Purpose of the Book

In February 2007, at the 43rd Munich Security Conference, then President Putin made the statement that Russia would respond to the United States asymmetrically. The purpose of the book is to explain what Putin meant by that statement. At the heart of Putin’s asymmetric strategy is the use of Russian energy and missiles.

Concept

Under Putin, Russia has emerged as the global energy superpower. The means by which it wishes to transform itself into a knowledge economy. Its military modernization program is designed to support its new national security doctrine. This is a doctrine that emphasizes the need to protect Russia’s energy interests. For Putin, the unipolar approach of the United States represents the greatest threat to the realization of this vision. Therefore, he has conceived an asymmetric response to the perceived U.S. threat: the creation of a new network of energy pipelines that will make Europe even more dependent on Russia than it already is, and will make Asia equally as dependent by 2020. In addition, in order to change the regional balance of power in his favor, Putin has employed a deft use of missile and aircraft arms sales to Russia’s energy partners, who are also not friends of the United States, such as Iran, Libya, Malaysia and Venezuela.

Overview

Due to low levels of debt, massive reserves and the pursuance of a course of fiscal responsibility, the World Bank in November 2008 predicted that Russia was in a good position to financially weather the current economic storm.

Russia holds the world’s largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal and uranium reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. Europe is dependent on Russia for 25% of its oil and gas. Russia is also positioning itself to play a similar role with respect to China.

Russia has embarked on a program of modernization of its military, the centerpiece of which is an overhaul of its aging strategic nuclear forces. The focus is on technologically advanced, but relatively inexpensive missile systems, which by comparison with their U.S. counterparts often exceed them in their capabilities.

From Putin’s perspective, America is in the process of imposing “absolute security” or as Joint Vision 2020 put it: “full spectrum dominance” over the world. As the sole remaining superpower, the United States enjoys a massive strategic imbalance in its favor, which it has used first to contain, but now with the intent to control the world. How? NATO expansion lays the groundwork for a U.S. global missile defense system to contain perceived adversaries, which in turn secures the dominance of America through its Prompt Global Strike capability (PGS) – the ability to strike anywhere on the planet with impunity within 90 minutes of the order being given by The President. Thus, PGS will be to the 21st Century, what British Gun Boat Diplomacy was to the 19th Century.

Potent? If either Israel and/or the United States attack Iran, they can expect to suffer losses of between 20%-40% of their non-stealth aircraft and missiles at the hands of Iran’s air defenses, including Russian S-300s, Tor-M1s and Pantsyr-S1s, as well as losses of civilian and naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz due to supersonic anti-ship missiles. Meanwhile, the world can expect a barrel of crude oil to cost $200.

Conclusion

Russia’s massive oil and gas reserves in the Arctic, Eastern Siberia and Far East, as well as its leading edge missile systems, make it a force to be reckoned with, rather than being ignored or dismissed by the West. Thus, the sooner the United States recognizes and comes to terms with this reality, the better it will be for her.

The book is available on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Asymmetric-Threat-United-States/dp/0313359415/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246228394&sr=1-1

A Caliphate of Toxic Assets

2009-06-29T07:02:34-07:00

By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, June 29, 2009

When a pro-terrorist organization announces its intention to launch a financial jihad against the West, it is well worth learning their methods — especially when they promote a religious pseudo-financial scheme through largely unregulated practices purported to be safer than the conventional. But ultimately, the new brand of assets are constructed with as little, and perhaps considerably less, transparency than the last wave of toxic assets that hit the economy, with catastrophic results.

The Muslim organization Hizb Ut Tahrir capitalizes on Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna's 20 ^th century derivative, encouraging followers to build a parallel financial structure. Al-Banna envisioned the resultant Shari'a-compliant finance as a “back door” into Western financial markets and institutions through which to supplant liberty and prosperity with Islam. Muslim clerics including MB spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi promote Shari'a finance as generally safer than Western investments, a diversification method to steady personal assets -- and a stable economic system that should replace capitalism. Call it “financial replacement theology,” if you wish.

In July, Hizb Ut Tahrir plans to launch its U.S. arm with a huge Chicago “Khalifah conference” heralding the coming Caliphate and global Islamic supremacism. After 9/11, Germany and Sweden outlawed Hizb Ut Tahrir. In July 2005, Pakistan's then-president Pervez Musharaf warned Britain not to tolerate its continued U.K. presence. But in the U.S., Hizb Ut Tahrir has proudly announced intentions to replace capitalism with Islam.

Founded five years into Jordan's illegal occupation of East Jerusalem in 1953, Hizb Ut Tahrir labels itself “peaceful” but strategically objects to violence only for the time being. The group sympathizes with the Muslim Brotherhood, considers Europe's democracies “a farce” -- and deems the U.S., UK, and Israel works of “the devil” -- and seeks to impose Islamic law (Shari'a) worldwide.

Major banks from Citigroup, HSBC, Chase, Bank of America and Lloyds TSB -- probably unaware of the etymology of Islamic finance -- established subsidiaries offering Shari'a-compliant products. Mutual funds at Principal Financial Group, UBS, Amana Funds and SEI Investments, among others, followed suit. Especially late last year as the devastating toll of sub-prime mortgage lending mounted, clients were assured that Islamic banking -- in many respects a dangerous financial fad -- was much safer than other banks and investment houses.

Yet bad economic news has not escaped the supposedly secure Islamic investing sector. Islamic securities can also (like all other asset classes) go into default, moreover. Holders of East Cameron Partners LP's “safe,” asset-backed Islamic bonds (sukuk) now line up before a Louisiana bankruptcy judge with all the other hapless creditors of the Texas-based Easter Cameron Oil and Gas Co. that filed for Chapter 11 reorganization last October.

The East Cameron default was no one-time Islamic finance anomaly, either. In May, Kuwait's Investment Dar Co. -- 50 percent owner of the Aston Martin Lagonda luxury car manufacturer -- defaulted on a $100 million sukuk. And in June Saad Group Islamic bonds traded at a quarter of their “face” value -- that is, the the roughly $650 billion price at which issued by Saudi billionaire Maan al-Sanea's company. The Saad Trading Contracting & Financial Services subsidiary, like East Cameron, went into financial restructuring, aka bankruptcy, after the Saudi Central bank froze the al-Sanea family accounts.

As I've often previously warned, events now show that Shari'a banking may prove more susceptible to market dislocations than other financial sectors.

Islamic bonds employ “some of the most complex” Western structured finance tools ever created. They transform liquid, traceable cash flows from interest-bearing debt into illiquid assets -- that cannot be easily unwound. In the 1980s, bond sponsors transformed trillions of dollars in cash flow claims on illiquid real assets into liquid, traceable mortgage-backed “pass-throughs” and “collateralized debt obligations” (CDOs).

The Muslim Brotherhood quickly re-branded the “special purpose entities” (SPEs) -- that kind that, coincidentally, sank Enron -- as Islamic “special-purpose vehicles (SPVs).” Shari’a banks use these vehicles to “restructure interest-bearing debt, collecting interest [as] rent or [a] price mark-up.” Issuers of sukuk al-ijara -- Shari'a bonds like those now in default -- sell hard assets to SPVs, which sell share certificates to fund their investment and in turn lease the purchased assets back to the sukuk issuers, collecting the principal plus interest that they then pass to sukuk investors as “rent.” But now, sukuk issuers are defaulting on “rent,” implying that SPVs can't sell or return property to issuers when their sukuks mature.

That means, in essence, Shari'a finance is a sham. “There is no such thing as interest free investment,” warns Columbia MBA Joy Brighton, echoing Rice University Islamic economics and finance chairman Mahmoud el-Gamal. “All Islamic finance today is interest based,” el-Gamal complained in the Financial Times two years ago. Furthermore, Islamic finance features a few other unique “complexities,” namely:

“Shari'a regulations can override commercial decisions.”
Documentation is not standardized
Inter-creditor agreements can be complex

As U.S. financial institutions crumble, rattling markets, Congress has focused on regulating the opaque, previously unregulated securities called credit default swaps that Brighton describes as guaranteed boxes of counter-party risks. “One party pays a premium, the second guarantees payment, and a third guarantees the guarantor.” AIG, for example, guaranteed payment on billions of dollars worth of sub-prime mortgage loans. “The credit default swap is the guarantee, and AIG bore the default risk burden in exchange for upfront fees on maybe trillions of dollars in loans.”

But credit default swaps are old news, Brighton says. “A new generation of toxic assets has not yet hit anyone's radar.” While touted as such, Islamic securities aren't immune to default. Many more Islamic issues are likely to succumb as the global economy worsens.

“Islamic banking is in the toxic derivatives genre,” says Brighton. Each counter-party agreement within its complex “boxes” of interwoven counter-party risks, is a contract for “payment” and “delivery/receipt of funds.” Issuers create derivatives when they “peel off and resell pieces” from individual securities containing multiple counter-party contracts. One default by a party to any of the interwoven contracts in a “box” can cause its whole structure to collapse.

Moreover, Islamic finance is doubly toxic. Many banking corporations have created Islamic subsidiaries, says Brighton -- segregated oil wealth managed by “outside money managers” and Islamic radicals who don't circulate money globally, but keep it “within the Islamic community, as a charity- and jihad-funding mechanism.” They're just another economic time bomb that financiers have blindly bought.

Alyssa A. Lappen is a former Senior Fellow of the American Center for Democracy, former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance, and former Associate Editor of Forbes. Her website is www.AlyssaaLappen.org.

Morocco- A Muslim Nation's Successful Election

2009-06-21T06:13:05-07:00

Commentary

(Appeared orginally at Forbes.com)
Rachel Ehrenfeld, 06.17.09, 11:55 AM ET

It is 131 degrees Fahrenheit in Marrakesh, Morocco, yet a slow but steady stream of voters--many of whom are women--enter the schoolyard to cast their ballots at the polling stations for the municipal elections.

On June 12, 2009, 1,503 communities chose their representatives in orderly, transparent elections, according to Ahmed Herzenni, chairman of Morocco's human rights watchdog, CCDH. His opinion was shared by more than 150 foreign observers, including the International Strategic Studies Association from Washington, D.C., and the New York-based American Center for Democracy (ACD).

Unlike the Soviet-style election in April that led to the reelection of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika in Algeria, Morocco's eastern neighbor, or the controversial and violent presidential election in Iran, Morocco's election was "fair and free."

The meticulously planned and executed election marked an important step in King Mohammed VI's reform plans to decentralize governance and empower local communities. With 6% economic growth, large investment in education and development, $21.11 billion in foreign debt and $27.29 billion in reserve, Morocco has weathered the global economic storm better than most. In introducing a new form of governance, the king's reforms are designed to increase the participation of all citizens in political and economic systems.

Morocco's interior minister, Chakib Benmoussa, an MIT graduate, led the planning, preparing and training of election officials and volunteers. A budget of close to $62 million was allocated to plan, organize and administer the elections. Special efforts were made to include more women in local politics. To overcome the high level of illiteracy and encourage voting, the ballots included pictures of the political parties, which were well advertised in advance.

These efforts yielded impressive results: Local elections attracted 15.4% more voters than the last parliamentary elections, in 2007. More than 7 million voters (52.4%) elected 27,795 council members; 61% of these were newly elected. The number of women elected rose significantly, from 0.4% in the previous local elections in 2003 to 12.3%. Most of these women are under the age of 35, and 75% of them have higher than secondary education.

"We were impressed because we've seen very clearly that people were well-acquainted with the rules and were well-prepared for elections," noted Leslie Lebl, a senior ACD fellow, one of the international observers. "Everything took place in very good conditions."

Jean-Charles Brisard, a French observer, noted the "professionalism" of the election supervising teams and said he was impressed by the "great sense of responsibility" demonstrated by participating officials and volunteers.

Significantly, there was a high turnout of voters in the Moroccan Western Sahara region. Though this area is still the subject of international dispute, the local inhabitants' active participation demonstrated their self-identification as Moroccan citizens. The Saharans clearly prefer Morocco's reform-oriented government to Algeria's repressive regime.

Morocco's efforts to unify its diverse population of Arabs, Berbers, Jews and other small minorities are impressive. To attract more members, the Islamist Justice and Development party abended its religious rhetoric. Although it gained relatively more votes in the big cities, it came in sixth, with only 5% of the votes. In contrast, the royalist, modernist, and reform-oriented Authenticity and Modernity Party came in first with roughly 18% of the votes and won almost 22% of seats.

In this Muslim country--where Jews and Christians can practice their religions freely, conversion from Islam is permitted by law, a big church stands in the center of the capital Rabat, and alcohol is freely sold in the supermarkets--the regionalization reforms underway promise that Morocco will become even more tolerant. Indeed, Morocco should be used as model by its neighbors in the region and beyond.

Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, is director of the American Center for Democracy.

Squelching free speech:Don't let 'lawfare,' legal ploys chill public debate on radical Islam

2009-06-11T14:04:41-07:00

The following article was published in the Sunday, June 7, 2009 issue of the Press-Enterprise, and is reposted here due to its subject matter.

Over the past 10 years, the world has seen a growing number of malicious lawsuits in American courts and abroad, filed by adherents of radical strains of Islam designed to punish and silence those who engage in public discourse about radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist financing.

This pursuit of strategic aims through aggressive legal maneuvers is known as "lawfare." More recently, these legal maneuvers have been accompanied by attempts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to redefine the very definition of free speech on a global scale in order to constrain the free flow of public information about radical Islam and terrorism. The 57-member conference's voter bloc dominates the U.N. General Assembly.

Even within the United States, despite the unparalleled protections of our First Amendment, lawfare lawsuits have resulted in many time-consuming and financially devastating cases against individuals who wrote about radical Islam and terrorism. These lawsuits have not spared Californians.

In 2002, the Anti-Defamation League's regional director and regional board chairman wrote and published a letter to California's schools superintendent urging investigation into whether state funding to the GateWay Academy charter school system was being illegally used to teach religion.

The letter called attention to the superintendent of the GateWay Academy, Khadija Ghafur, and her status as an officer of "Muslims of the Americas," an organization linked to the terrorist group Al-Fuqra. Ghafur then filed suit in San Francisco against the league and its officers, claiming that the public letter constituted libel against her.

Intimidating lawsuits

In 2007, Yale University Press published a book by counterterrorism expert Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Entitled "Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad," the book mentioned several U.S.-based charities as allegedly having funded the terrorist organization Hamas. Among the named organizations was Kids in Need of Development, Education and Relief Inc., better known as KinderUSA. KinderUSA sent a letter to Yale University Press demanding a retraction.

When the publisher refused, KinderUSA filed a libel lawsuit against Yale University Press, the Washington Institute and Levitt himself in Los Angeles.

All too many defendants in situations such as these have been forced to surrender, facing bankruptcy from legal fees long before their cases could be heard. However, both the Anti-Defamation League and Levitt were able to make use of a legal innovation enacted by the California Legislature in 1993. Known as an anti-SLAPP statute, it is a legal mechanism aimed at preventing lawsuits designed to hinder legitimate public dialogue. When the Anti-Defamation League made this motion, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit, a ruling that was upheld on appeal.

In the Yale University Press case, after the defendants filed the anti-SLAPP motion, KinderUSA dropped the lawsuit altogether, saying only that it had underestimated the costs involved.

Sadly, despite many successes when these cases have been heard on their merits, Islamist lawfare has carved a global swath through the public debate on radical Islam and terrorism. And lurking behind the scenes of world discussion (or lack thereof) on these subjects is the immensely powerful and far-reaching Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Over the past several years, the Islamic conference has gotten the U.N. Human Rights Council to issue resolutions condemning "defamation of religion," and continues to work toward suppressing or otherwise controlling any and all dialogue regarding radical Islam and terrorism under the guise of "human rights."

It should be ludicrous for a human rights group in any nation to claim that blaspheming a religious figure is a human rights violation. Yet Adel Al-Damkhi, chairman of the Kuwait Human Rights Society, has stated that "uttering profanities against Prophet Muhammad is the worst form of human rights violation in the world."

The Organization of the Islamic Conference's secretary-general himself has publicly stated that, in discussing Islamic rights, "These rights are part and parcel of the teaching of Islam that no ruler, government, assembly or authority can alter, curtail or violate in any way."

That statement does not prevent the conference from working to compel others to follow its politicized version of Islam, of course.

Defend open discourse

These issues have not met with significant news coverage, despite significant consequences for the entire world. However, that is not to say that no action has been taken. On May 19, the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum hosted a historic conference on libel lawfare in Washington, D.C., along with the Federalist Society, the Center for National Security Law and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

With a morning panel on lawfare in the United States, luncheon presentations from individuals with direct experience in lawfare, and an afternoon panel on European and international aspects of the phenomenon, the conference brought together considerable and varied expertise in the field.

There was no single conference conclusion -- that was not its purpose. The conference achieved its purpose simply by engaging in precisely the type of speech that Islamists want to suppress so desperately: open discussion on these critical issues of public concern, without fear of threats or reprisal.

Aaron Eitan Meyer is assistant director at the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum.

Hamas still stealing international aid

2009-06-11T10:58:17-07:00

by David Frankfurter

As I pointed out in my blog item Israel to open Gaza border crossings?, Hamas has once again been outed stealing international aid and diverting it to its nefarious military activities. This time, the the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida confirmed that thousands of tons of medical equipment - including 46 ambulances stripped of their equipment and painted black to be used as military vehicles - have been hijacked by Hamas for direct military use or for re-sale to the population after confiscation.

Hat tip to Palestinian Media Watch.

Attacking Iran - Is the Price Too High to Pay?

2009-06-05T16:19:37-07:00

By John Wood

Recently, Israel conducted a five-day emergency drill, the largest ever conducted by that nation. Just a year ago, in June 2008, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) conducted a massive 100 plane exercise over the Mediterranean. Both these events are seen as preparation for an imminent attack by Israel on Iran. Most believe that Israel will again emerge victorious. Some believe that Israel might only be able to degrade Iran’s widely dispersed and extensive nuclear industrial complex. Few have considered the cost to Israel, in particular, resulting from Russian made air defense systems, such as S-300s, Tor-M1s and Pantsyr-S1s; or the damage that could be inflicted by Russian and Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles on international shipping in the Straits of Hormuz. For the first time ever, Israel faces the distinct possibility of losing 20% to 40% of its aircraft, a price it may not be willing to pay. And the world could face the prospect of oil at $200 a barrel, a price it may not be able to afford.

On February 19, 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that as of January 31, 2009, Iran had produced 1,010 kilograms of low enriched uranium. The President of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. David Albright, declared that Iran had achieved “breakout capability.” In other words, Iran had enough material to produce a nuclear bomb comprised of 20–25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Scott Kemp and Alexander Glaser, physicists and members of the research staff of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, believe the process of converting the low enriched into highly enriched uranium will take somewhere between eight months and three years. As Albright points out, the time frame may be shorter if Iran has other covert facilities to assist in speeding up the process. Clearly, Israel’s time to act is running out.

Iran does not possess a nationwide integrated air-defense network. It will therefore have to rely on defending its key nuclear facilities, such as the enrichment facility at Natanz, the conversion facility at Esfahan, the heavy-water facility at Arak, and the Bushehr nuclear power plant. This means that Russian made air defense systems such as S-300s, Tor-M1s and Pantsyr-S1s will be critical to whether Iran is able to fend off Israel’s air attack against these nuclear facilities. The lethality of a weapon system is called its “kill probability.” The S-300 has a single-shot kill probability of 80% to 93% for aerial targets. The Tor-M1 has an aircraft kill probability of between 92% and 95%. The Pantsyr-S1 has a kill probability of 70% to 95% against all targets. The A. Burke Chair in Strategy, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony Cordesman, estimates that Iran has 15,000 men deployed in air defense, manning 1,700 anti-aircraft guns and more than 250 major SAM launchers. In addition, Iran has large numbers of Russian and Chinese man-portable SAMs.

Thus, the IAF will be greeted by a large number and variety of Iranian air defense systems and missiles, which in of itself will increase the likelihood that it will suffer losses higher than it has ever suffered before.

Cordesman also estimates that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Navy has a significant number of Chinese guided-missile patrol boats armed with anti-ship missiles. There are also a number of batteries of land-based anti-ship missiles in and around the Straits of Hormuz. Lastly, Iran has three ultra quiet Russian Kilo class submarines armed with Klub-S supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Iran’s anti-ship missile capability represents a clear and present danger to not just oil tankers, but also U.S. Navy vessels. Although the U.S. Navy is capable of handling Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles, according to Australian military expert Carlo Kopp, a salvo of six or more is likely to overcome even an Aegis warship’s defenses. The challenge is compounded by absence of a comprehensive U.S. Navy plan for dealing with supersonic anti-ship missiles. Accordingly, the U.S. Navy can expect to suffer losses, perhaps, even that of an aircraft carrier, which would cost billions of dollars to replace.

In the final analysis, although an attack on Iran will be costly, the alternative, not just a nuclear Iran, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and Syria, would exact an even higher price from Israel down the road.

John Wood is a Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy. He is also the author of “Russia the Asymmetric Threat: A Potent Mixture of Energy and Missiles” to be published by Praeger Security International on June 30, 2009, and available on Amazon.com.

U.S. Bails Out Palestinian Terrorism…Again

2009-06-01T19:55:09-07:00

The U.S. is in a Hurry to Militarize the Palestinians

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

The May 28 meeting between President Barak Obama and Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas, confirms that this Administration, like its predecessors, refuses to learn from the past.

In yet another déjà-vu, the U.S. unconditional support to the Palestinians is persisting despite the fact that the Palestinians have never upheld any agreement to stop the violence against Israel.

Not even the economic downturn and financial instability in the U.S. have curtailed the Obama Administration’s financing of Palestinian terrorism.

A day after the Obama – Netanyahu meeting, U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, reassured Al Jazeera viewers, that “the Obama Administration is not waiting.”

In addition to the $900 million the Administration offered the Palestinians on March 2, it is working to speed the establishment of regular Palestinian military and security forces. The U.S. has already trained 1,500 Palestinian soldiers costing the recession gripped American taxpayer $161 million. These newly trained forces says Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the PA, “are new men,” unlike the thousands trained by the U.S. since the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1994.

The scheme behind the U.S. military initiative to organize and train the PA military forces is that these “new men” would help Abbas defeat Hamas. However, Abbas had already indicated that he “has agreed in principle to form a joint security force with …Hamas.” This does not seem to faze Dayton, who insists that the “new men,” are on a mission to "create a Palestinian state."

Abu Yusef, a member of the PA’s Chairman own security unit - Force 17, has an unambiguous view of the American military training of the Palestinians: “The operations of the Palestinian resistance would [not] have been so successful and "would not have killed more than 1,000 Israelis since 2000, and defeated the Israelis in Gaza without [American military] trainings,” he boasted in an interview in August 2007. "All the methods and techniques that we studied in these trainings, we applied them against the Israelis," he said.

Abu Yusef explained that the American training helped the Palestinian forces to better snipe “at Israeli settlers and soldiers.” The special intelligence training they received from the U.S. instructors helped them “collect information on the movements of soldiers and settlers… the best timing to infiltrate our bombers inside Israel.” Abu Yusef specified: “We used weapons and we produced explosives, and of course the trainings we received from the Americans and the Europeans were a great help to the resistance."

If the past is of any indication, then the “new men” would join thousands of already well-trained and well-equipped Palestinians whose main goal remained to fight Israel. Yet, the U.S. is determined to expedite the training.

Furthermore, on May 27, a day before Obama’s meeting with Abbas, in a move to protect Hamas terrorists, the U.S. blocked Israel’s request for the AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter, worried that the “helicopters would threaten Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.”

While Mrs. Clinton assured the House Appropriations Committee: "No aid will flow to Hamas or any entity controlled by Hamas," PA Prime Minister and Finance Minister Salem Fayyad acknowledged many times that controlling Palestinian finances "is virtually impossible."

Furthermore, last February, despite Fatah-Hamas bloody disagreements, Fayyad diverted $21.5 million sent from Israel to pay PA employees’ salaries, to Hamas controlled Gaza, supposedly to rebuild buildings destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. This and millions of dollars Fayyad receives from Israel to pay the rapidly growing numbers of alleged PA employees in Gaza, pays Hamas loyalists instead. In addition, Hamas taxes the PA salaries and keeps the money in Gaza. All this amounts to millions of dollars each month to Hamas.

In December 2007, soon after Hamas takeover of Gaza, international donors pledged $7.4 billion to the PA, to help it fight Hamas. This did not stop Fayyad who declared the PA would give Hamas 40% ($3.1 billion) of the funds. The PA did not get all that money, because most donors refused to send money to Hamas.

The $4.5 billion - $5.2 billion pledged in March 2009 to rebuild Gaza is held up for similar reason. But Mrs. Clinton insists the U.S. has “worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure our funding is only used where and for whom it is intended and does not end up in the wrong hands."

It seems that Mrs. Clinton is impressed with the PA’s much touted anti money laundering programs, while ignoring the PA’s actions of sending “clean” money into the hands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

The newly pledged international aid to the Palestinians would amount to $1,125- $1,300 dollars to each of the 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. This is on top of hundreds of millions of dollars in “humanitarian aid” sent by Israel, the U.S., European Union (EU), Saudi Arabia, Iran and other international organizations and to Hamas controlled Gaza, since December 2008.

In comparison, from 2003 to 2006 each of 2.5 million Darfur refugees received only $100 per person annually from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

As not to leave Obama in the dark for his meeting with Abbas on Thursday, May 28, the PA representative to the negotiations with Israel, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), told the Israeli Daily Ha’aretz on May 26: “It's not fair to demand that we recognize you [Israel] as the state of the Jewish people…Our refusal is adamant."

Instead of demanding the Palestinians to officially recognize Israel, Obama placed the burden of the progress of Middle East peace on Israel.

Alas, such persistent statements and increasing violence against Israel since the creation of the PA in 1994 never stopped any American Administration from investing billions of dollars into the creation of well armed and trained radical Muslim Palestinian state. As with other failed entities, the Obama Administration seems resolute to bail out yet another losing venture - the Palestinian terrorist state.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It

Recession In Terrorism Finance?

2009-05-29T18:00:47-07:00

by Rachel Ehrenfeld

inFocus - Summer 2009

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/968/recession-in-terrorism-finance

The economic downturn and instability of the financial markets in the West has battered global economies. Despite the accompanying drop in oil prices, the current financial crisis has actually presented opportunities to expedite the influence and extend the global reach of Islamism in ways Sunni imams and Shiite mullahs could have only fantasized about before.

Saudi & Gulf Funding

The financial tsunami that swept state and local governments, as well as national and international aid organizations, has led to a precipitous decline in services to growing numbers of unemployed or needy citizens, not to mention subsidies to academic institutions and other organizations. This provided petrodollar-loaded Islamist regimes with an opportunity to practice da'wa (Islamic missionary outreach) through donations in the name of Islam. Such donations, including financial bailouts of cash-strapped Western institutions and businesses, have helped directly and indirectly to spread Islamism globally.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is commonly recognized as the primary exporter of Wahhabism, among the more extreme strains of Islamism. In 2008, Saudi Arabia earned $285 billion, up from $201.1 billion in 2007. Indeed, the Saudi Kingdom took the lion's share of the $968 billion total revenue of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

This year, the decreased demand for oil is expected to generate only $462 billion for OPEC. While the shrinking oil revenues may affect the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Saudi Arabia, the expansion of Islamism is unlikely to ebb. For example, since early May 2009, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have pledged between $1.646 billion and $1.950 billion to the Palestinians, according to figures published on the website of the Saudi embassy in Washington.

Most of these funds-along with medical aid, food, and building materials-went directly to Hamas, the terrorist organization now in control of the Gaza Strip. These funds were transferred despite international restrictions on providing material support to Hamas. On January 19, 2009, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah pledged an additional $1 billion "to help rebuild the Gaza Strip."

While the Saudis have pledged nearly $3 billion to the suicide-bombing Hamas organization, they provided a mere 150 tons of dates for more than 500,000 Pakistani refugees fleeing the brutal, Shari'a-enforcing Taliban. This clearly shows where Saudi interests lie.

This is not to say that the Saudis support only Hamas, or that Hamas' only patron is Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Iran's financial and strategic support to Hamas has been widely documented. Still, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have historically been the sources responsible for bankrolling the global spread of Islamism through mosques, academic institutions, NGO's, terrorist groups (Shiite as well as Sunni), and all Palestinian terrorist organizations.

It is hard to determine the exact amount of Saudi and Gulf financial support and charitable donations that have been funneled to promote the radical agenda of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood-the creation of a global caliphate. It is even harder to determine how much of those funds directly supported terrorism under the banner of charity, or zakat, the third pillar of Islam.

Financial Jihad

Analyst Jonathan D. Halevi's excellent study on financial jihad demonstrated that it is "part of Allah's jihad commandment to Muslims." Indeed, jihad can take several forms: jihad of the sword, jihad of the tongue, jihad of the pen, and financial jihad.

"I like to call it jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money," Yusuf Qardawi, the Qatar-based spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said on BBC in July 2006.

Despite the speed with which Islamism spreads on every continent -including foreign and homegrown varieties-American and European policy makers fail to understand that all methods of financial jihad, both legal and illegal, are deemed permissible by Islamist clerics as a means to bring the Ummah (Muslim world) closer. Indeed, radical imams and Shari'a scholars cite the Quran as well as issue special religious edicts (fatwas) to justify these activities.

Illegal drug trafficking, we are told, is forbidden by the Quran. However, the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism 2008 documents the increasing criminal activities of Islamist terrorist groups, sometimes in collaboration with drug traffickers and other criminal organizations. Other crimes include money laundering, human trafficking, arms smuggling, diamond smuggling, counterfeiting, identity theft, and fraud, to name just a few. These operations take place in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East.

Economic turmoil simply makes these activities more lucrative. They replace donations and failed "legitimate" enterprises that secretly funneled money to the terrorists. Recently, there have been numerous arrests of financial criminals in the U.S. and elsewhere who used their legitimate businesses to provide material support to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah. These arrests do not necessarily indicate that our law enforcement has gotten better, but that such activities are on the rise.

Shari'a Finance

Another important source of financial support for the spread of Islamism is the rise of financial institutions and financial instruments based on Islamic law-Shari'a. Because Islam prohibits interest payments and investments in "sin" businesses such as alcohol, pornography, tobacco, and gambling, Shari'a compliant products are depicted as "ethical and socially responsible," luring Muslims and many Western investors who were burned in the recent market crash.

This is not just a trend. Indeed, major Western banks such as HSBC, Citibank, and UBS are heavily invested. HSBC, for example, now features a "dedicated brand 'Amana' for its growing range of international Islamic financial products and services. HSBC's Amana is "present in 79 countries and [has] been closely in touch with local communities and their requirements."

Amana Mutual Funds Zakat Guide was compiled by M. Yaqub Mirza, at the Saturna Capital Corporation, which administers the funds. Mirza is a former business partner of Yassin al-Qadi, a Saudi businessman who was designated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) in 2001. Mirza served on the boards of several Islamic foundations that were also banned by the U.S. Treasury. And though Mirza was not indicted, affiliation with individuals and organizations that funded Hamas and al-Qaeda should have raised some red flags at HSBC and other firms that do business with Amana.

Mirza is just one questionable figure associated with HSBC. Despite having been banned from the U.S. in 1999 and Great Britain in 2008, Qardawi was cited on the Amana Mutual Funds Trust website as a zakat expert. HSBC neglected to cite Qaradawi's 1999 publication, Fiqh az-Zakat, where he wrote, "The most important form of jihad today is serious, purposefully organized work to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains. This is certainly most deserving of zakat."

Qardawi, in other words, seeks to replace the Western financial system with an Islamic one. His sentiments are echoed by HSBC's chief Shari'a advisor, Mohammed Taqi Usmani. "For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state itself is an obstacle, therefore to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad," claims Usmani, one of the leading Shari'a finance scholars. His 2002 book, Islam and Modernism, is rife with Islamist vitriol. "Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah [the subjugation tax] after they are humbled or overpowered," he wrote.

HSBC is not the only financial firm in need of a Shari'a audit. American International Group (AIG), now owned-in-part by the U.S. government, is selling "Takaful" insurance. AIG's Shari'a advisory board is unlikely to invest in Jewish, Israeli, or Christian businesses, which are considered forbidden (haram) according to Shari'a law. Since the U.S. government owns AIG, the question of discrimination was raised in a lawsuit filed last December by the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center.

To understand the dangers of Islamic banking, one must understand the original intentions of Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Pakistan and Egypt in the 1920s. Their aim was to replace the Western economy with Islamic economy, and for that they needed new mechanisms.

Shari'a scholars who sit on banks' advisory boards ban "un-Islamic" financing and create a mechanism for zakat donations. The destination of those zakat dollars is not transparent, leaving open the possibility for terrorism finance. Indeed, Islamic banks -especially those operating in the West-are at best lacking in their due diligence, transparency, and accountability.

Losses of billions of dollars in Western investments reduced the wealth of many Arab and Muslim banks in the Middle East. But the hundreds of billions of petrodollars they accumulated during the oil boom left them with ample funds to continue the acquisitions of Western businesses that can be used to advance the Islamist agenda through Shari'a finance. Indeed, amidst a credit crunch, when cash is king, Western governments allow Islamic banking to operate freely.

M-Payments

The M-payment is another cause for concern amidst the current global turmoil. Islamic banks in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states were among the first to use the Mobile Payment System. M-payments were developed initially to help hundreds of millions of international migrant workers, and the poor who do not have bank accounts, to transfer money domestically and internationally. They can also pay bills, give contributions to charities, and purchase prepaid Internet credits.

The M-payment is a growing phenomenon. HSBC-with more than 5,000 offices in 79 countries-offers an m-payment solution through the Monilink WorldWideWeb network and its subsidiary First Direct, a telephone and Internet-based commercial bank.

Terrorists abuse M-payments by exploiting the stored value card, which does not require a bank account or credit card to activate and use. Nor does it require two forms of government-approved identification. The majority of cards only allow low levels of cash to be held on the card, but some allow the transfer of thousands of dollars.

There is hardly a better vehicle available to terrorists to transfer or receive money than the M-payment service with its mobility and anonymity. Terrorist financing is even easier when using this new technology in less-developed countries that lack functioning anti-money laundering and regulatory frameworks.

In March 2008, for example, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement at the State Department released a report about the growing threat of mobile payments. "Unfortunately, there is little financial intelligence on most forms of NPM's [New Payment Methods], including M-payments," the report stated.

Recession Proof

Islamists on a mission to create a global Shari'a empire-armed with billions of petrodollars and a growing network of global criminal enterprises-are cultivating an opaque Islamic banking system that can easily launder terrorists' and criminals' ill-gotten gains, which can then be transferred without detection.

Financial analysts are now on the hunt for "recession-proof" industries. The terrorists have no such worries. Despite the global economic strains, the Islamist terror industry is on the rise, and is unlikely to be hindered.

Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It.

Obama's Administration Protects Saudi Funders of 9/11

2009-05-29T17:57:10-07:00

Source: 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism

In Re: Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., et al., Case No. 03-CV-9849 (RCC)In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, MDL 1570

WASHINGTON, May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

The following is a statement of 9/11 Family Members: Mike Low, Father of Sara Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11; Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett, Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court

Today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration's decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001

We are deeply dismayed by this decision, filed by the solicitor general of the United States in response to the Supreme Court's February 23, 2009 invitation for the government to express its views in the 9/11 families' request to appeal a portion of the case to the Court. The Administration's filing mocks our system of justice and strikes a blow against the public's right to know the facts about who financed and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that result.

The Administration apparently gave less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies, and more weight to political concerns and pleadings of a foreign government on the behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy and others who stand accused of financing the attacks that murdered our loved ones. Sadly, although the Administration's obviously politically based filing is merely informational and in no way binding on the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court were to follow it, these people will avoid being held accountable not because they are innocent, but because they are royalty.

The Administration's filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case -- one that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder of our family members -- does not warrant the Supreme Court's time. Contrary to the view expressed by the Obama Administration in the solicitor general's filing, the victims of the September 11th attack deserve to have their claims decided under accurate legal standards

For all of these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court to reject the solicitor general's politically-premised filing, along with its wrongheaded priorities, accept our petition, and grant us our fundamentally American right to have our day in Court.

SOURCE 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism

Should we be funding the PA?

2009-05-26T20:04:19-07:00

I think the answer to this yes, given the alternatives, though it's a case of choosing the least-worst situtation. Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook establish that the Palestinian Authority [PA] is still violating the terms of receiving aid, in: Will the US follow its laws and suspend funding to Abbas?

A revealing excerpt:

The PA chose to name its latest computer center "after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," who led the most deadly terror attack in the country's history. Her 1978 bus hijacking killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children, including American photographer Gail Rubin. The new center is funded by Abbas's office, which is bolstered by Western aid money. (Al-Ayyam, May 5)....

TWO MONTHS AGO, 31 years to the day after the Mughrabi murders, PA TV broadcast a special program celebrating the terror attack, calling the killing of 37 civilians "one of the most important and most prominent special operations... carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi" (PA TV March 11). And its not just Mughrabi who is a Palestinian hero. Despite professions in English by Abbas and other PA leaders that they reject terror, the PA has a long and odious history in Arabic of celebrating terrorists as role models and heroes, often involving US money.

I will mention that to my knowledge, since the death of Yasser Arafat, the PA has been significantly less involved in incitement, let alone terrorism, than Hamas.

Where is Saudi Aid to Victims of the Taliban?

2009-05-12T16:08:52-07:00

by Rachel Ehrenfeld

Conspicuously neither Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz nor the rulers of any Arab or Muslim state are holding special national telethons to help raise funds for some 400,000 new Pakistani refugees. Many fled their homes after the Taliban took over the Swat valley, and others were forced to leave amid the fierce fighting between the Taliban and the Pakistani military. The Saudis say they are friends of the West and of all Muslim nations, but their real alliance is with Iran, Hamas and the Taliban--as you can tell just by following the money.

Indeed, to get hundreds of millions, and even billions, of dollars in emergency funds from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States, the Pakistani refugees should have declared themselves Palestinian.

Since January 2009, or in just over four months, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have given between $1.646 billion and $1.950 billion to the Palestinians, according to figures published on the Web site of Saudi Arabia's embassy in the U.S.

Most of the money, as well as medical aid, food and building materials, went to Hamas-controlled Gaza. These donations were in addition to $1 billion donated on Jan. 19 by King Abdullah "to help rebuild the Gaza Strip."

On May 6, a day after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sought Saudi help to fight off the Taliban in Pakistan, the Saudis announced a $25 million donation, not to Pakistan, but to rebuild the Palestinian Nahr Al-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon.

Meanwhile on May 7, at the Arab League's meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo, Egypt, aid to Pakistan was not on the agenda. Instead, as reported by the Saudi Gazette, the League issued a warning about the imminent danger posed to Jerusalem by the Jews.

On May 10, while a new influx of 100,000 Pakistanis escaped the fighting between the military and the Taliban, Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal, chairman of the Kingdom Holding Company Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Secretary-General Abdul Rahman Al-Attiyah all found the time to meet with Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama. They promised to send a high-level delegation "to consider the volume of assistance that could be rendered to rehabilitate the [internal] refugees" in war-torn Sri Lanka.

So what about Saudi aid to the suffering Pakistanis? On April 23, the Saudi King gave Pakistan 150 tons of dates, as "humanitarian aid."

Is this an appropriate response from the "custodian" of the two holiest mosques, the second-largest Muslim country in the world and one that is 70% Sunni?

The Saudis are pouring money into Gaza, where Iranian-supported, sharia-enforcing Hamas caused death and destruction. At the same time, they are avoiding supporting Pakistan against the Iranian-supported, sharia-enforcing, murderous Taliban.

It seems that the Saudis care more about enforcement of the most radical form of sharia as imposed by Hamas and the Taliban, than they do about helping hundreds of thousands of suffering Muslim brothers in Pakistan.

Support to Hamas and the indirect endorsement of the Taliban are a telling sign of important changes in the Muslim world. The Sunni-Wahhabi Saudis and the Shiite radicals ruling Iran seem to have put aside their differences for now. The uniting factor is the opportunity to speed up the creation of the global Islamic nation--the ummah in Arabic.

The Taliban, like Hamas, achieved political and territorial gains by brute force. Hamas threw the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority out of the Gaza Strip, and the Taliban took over Pakistan's Swat valley, through relentless terrorist attacks. Both terrorist groups received tactical and strategic support from Iran and funds from the Saudis.

On April 28, former head of Saudi intelligence Prince Turki al-Faisal, who admitted funding the Taliban before 9/11, and who served as ambassador to Washington, was quoted in the Washington Times calling for "the speedy withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan," saying that they are "not welcome" there.

Pakistan's decision to cede power over the Swat Valley to the Taliban, and the Obama administration's decision to talk with Hamas and Iran, only help to bolster these groups' demands and increase their influence in the Arab and Muslim world. The more concessions the West makes to radical Islam, the stronger it gets and the closer it comes to the Islamic dream--and the rest of the world's nightmare--of the coming ummah.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It.

Iran's Alavi Foundation is still open

2009-05-07T15:19:30-07:00

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

On May 6, 2009, the president of the Alavi Foundation, Farshid Jahedi, was indicted at the Southern District of New York, "for allegedly destroying documents subpoenaed by a grand jury investigating the Alavi Foundation’s relationship with Bank Melli Iran and the ownership of a Manhattan office building." Yet, this important indictment recived very little attention in the media.

The Alavi Foundation was established in 1973 by the Shah of Iran as the Pahlavi Foundation, "to pursue Iran's charitable interests in the United States." It was renamed the Mostazafan Foundation in 1981 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and renamed again in 1992 as the Alavi Foundation.

As early as 1979, the foundation and its partner Bank Melli were recognized as procurement fronts for Iran's nuclear weapons program. Twenty years later, the U.S. government recognized Bank Melli as a vehicle controlled by the Iranian Government. The bank was finally designated a terrorist entity on Oct. 25,2007. What took so long? The Alavi Foundation's Web site states that its mission is promoting and supporting Shiite educational, religious and cultural programs: in essence, delivering the mullahs' message to America. The foundation also owns and funds several mosques and educational centers in New York, Maryland, Texas and California.

"Jahedi is charged in the indictment with two felony offenses. Count one charges Jahedi with destroying a document, with the intent to impair that document’s availability for use in an official proceeding, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Count two charges Jahedi with obstruction of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison."

Last January, in two separate federal lawsuits in NYC, nine people "demand a total of $59.5 million from the Alavi Foundation, to satisfy judgments against Iran for a Sept. 4, 1997 Hamas suicide bombing in a Jerusalem mall."

Despite all this, and the well documented anti- American, espionage and terror financing activities of the foundation, it remains open. Why?

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of American Center for Democracy (ACD) and author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It.

California Moves to Stop Libel Tourism

2009-05-07T05:59:13-07:00

by Rachel Ehrenfeld

Afflicted with one hazard of globalization - the spread of the swine flu epidemic -- California's state Senate took measures to protect its citizens from another less deadly, yet terrorizing hazard -- the chilling effects on their freedom of expression by foreign libel judgments.

California is the world capital of the entertainment industry, which provides major revenues to the state. To protect it, Senator Ellen Corbett (D), the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, initiated California's Anti-Libel Tourism Act (SB 320), which on April 28, 2009 unanimously passed in the State Senate.

Today, people who could never win a libel lawsuit in United States or California are suing in libel-friendly countries like the United Kingdom, where they obtain costly judgments against Americans. International treaties require U.S. courts to recognize and enforce these judgments. But SB 320, "would prohibit state courts from enforcing a defamation judgment obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, unless the court determines the defamation law applied in the case provided at least as much protection for freedom of expression as offered by the U.S. and California Constitutions."

Without this law, every creative enterprise produced in California, and every individual writer, director and producer in California, is now at risk of financial devastation at the hands of Libel Tourists.

In fact, all books, television and movie scripts, fiction and non-fiction, radio shows, web content and even video games, are exposed to this predatory legal action from abroad.

Libel Tourism is a pernicious and growing phenomenon often used by wealthy and corrupt terror financiers to exploit plaintiff-friendly foreign libel laws and jurisdictions to silence American authors, producers and publishers. Ever since the attacks on America of September 11, 2001, foreign libel laws have become a potent weapon used by the forces of tyranny who seek to undermine our freedom. California's Libel Tourism Act can stop this invasive silencing of free speech and restore our libertya.

American libel laws are very different from other countries' laws and strongly protect free speech. But in many countries, journalists can be jailed for criminal libel. Truth is often not a defense; publications can be confiscated; newspapers, film, television studios and broadcast stations can be shuttered; and writers and producers can be heavily fined and forced to publish adverse court orders, and repudiate as false what they know to be true. English laws, in particular, are so friendly to the plaintiff that the Times of London calls London "the libel capital of the world."

In 2003, Bonus Books, a small California based publisher published my third book, Funding Evil, How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. In the thoroughly documented book, I showed how among many others, Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz funded al Qaeda, Hamas and other radical Muslim organizations.

Mahfouz who does not live in England sued me in London for libel. But I live in New York, and my book was not published or marketed in England. Nonetheless, the English court accepted jurisdiction because twenty-three copies of Funding Evil arrived in England via Internet purchases.

What happened next did not occur in a dark backwater of totalitarian repression like Syria, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, but in England. Although Mahfouz's suit has never been tried on merit, the British Court granted Mahfouz a judgment by default, awarding him hundreds of thousands of dollars, and other sanctions, including destruction of all copies of my book.

In response, I sued Mahfouz in New York to declare his English judgment violated my rights under the First Amendment. That litigation led the New York Legislature last May to enact the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" aka "Rachel's Law." Illinois followed suit last August and Florida's "Libel Protection Bill," Passed by Florida's Legislature on May 4. And the Free Speech Protection Act 2009, sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Specter and Schumer, and Rep. King and others, is pending in Congress. The bill is supported by most free speech organizations and major media outlets in the nation.

Without the Anti-Libel Tourism Act, every creative enterprise produced in California is at risk of financial destruction at the hands of foreign predators. Thus, the State Legislature must protect California's writers, producers and publishers to guarantee the "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" expression the First Amendment was designed to protect. The Senate passed the bill, and I urge California's Assembly to pass the Anti- Libel Tourism Act without delay, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign it into law.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It, is director of American Center for Democracy (ACD)

European Union Funding and the Push to Legitimize Hizballah

2009-04-23T15:40:55-07:00

By Ilan Weinglass

Recent attempts by Britain to dialogue with Hizballah, and a planned address by Khaled Mashaal to Britsh MPs, may well be the result of a lobbying effort funded by the European Union. Jonathan Spyer, in an article yesterday, reports that The Conflicts Forum, which openly acknowledges attempts to legitimize Hamas and Hizballah, received a 500,000 Euro grant from the European Union in 2007. In other words, The EU is funding a group trying to change EU policy.

Some excerpts from the article:

A cursory observation of the backers of Conflicts Forum, however, reveals a curious paradox. In January 2007, the group proudly announced that it had been awarded a grant of €500,000 by the EU, to develop "more inclusive and legitimate approaches to transforming the Middle East conflict." More specifically, the project entails the "engagement" of "faith-based movements."
So the EU, while currently opposing "engagement" with Hamas, also appears to be offering financial support to a body engaged in lobbying for the organization.

Malaysia on G20 blacklist- Sharia finance market & terrorist financiers adversely affected

2009-04-04T20:16:40-07:00

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Malaysia's prominence as an Islamic financial centre is well described as follows:

Malaysia’s growth to a leadership position in Islamic finance lends itself well to this service being one of the prominent areas of expertise offered by Labuan IBFC. “Malaysia generally has a more pragmatic approach to Islamic finance,” observes (Mark) Crawford (CEO,Labuan IBFC), “and that has led to its leadership rankings across the spectrum of products from banking to sukuk, from “takaful” (insurance) to wealth management.” Crawford adds that Labuan “led the charge” in Malaysia’s rise to prominence in Islamic finance – with the first sukuk issuances, the first re-takaful operators and such. Labuan has been “a terrific incubator of Islamic finance activity for Malaysia, including serving as a sort of genesis for MIFC [Malaysia International Islamic Financial Center].” MIFC is a collaborative effort supported by Malaysia’s primary financial regulators: Bank Negara Malaysia (the central bank), the Securities Commission, Bursa Malaysia (the stock exchange) and LOFSA.

LOFSA Director General Dato’ Azizan notes that “Islamic finance is an integral part of Malaysia’s national agenda, and LOFSA is very much a part of that agenda.” Businesses and individuals engaging in Islamic financial services can choose between doing business through the domestic infrastructure (i.e. under the jurisdiction of Bank Negara, Bursa Malaysia, etc.) or via Labuan( see http://www.washingtontimesglobal.com/content/story/malaysia/577/international-port-call-islamic-finance-and-more)

Indeed Malaysia is one of the world's largest markets for Islamic bonds.The cash rich oil fiefdoms of the Middle East are thought to be a major source of funds ; this inflow of Middle Eastern funds into Malaysia was especially apparent after 9-11. Financial Times has reported that in 2003 the Saudis alone pulled some $200 billion out of the US markets, and reallocated those funds into Bahrain and Malaysia. (see http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=060806G)

That said, it is also true that the Malaysian Government and its Central Bank have been rather lax in their supervision of the banking system, quite openly allowing the Al-Qaeda financier Yassin Al-Kadi to operate his businesses in that country despite his designation by the UN. Among businesses linked to him in Malaysia is the USD 8 billion Labuan bank, Commercial IBT Pty Ltd. The extent of Malaysian disregard for sanctions against Al-Kadi is, to say the least, breathtaking, and well exemplified in the Commercial IBT matter: See report at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1754286.htm

Malaysia and Labuan have also featured in other transactions involving Al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers. See for example:

a) Malaysia's Bank Islam,linked to the TWRA,gains entry to Europe via the UK's European Islamic Investment Bank (http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2007/09/malaysias-bank-.html)

b) Jamal Barzinji of the IIIT, Bank Islam & Bosnia (http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2006/11/jamal_barzinji_.html)

It comes therefore as no surprise that the G20 chose to blacklist Malaysia together with only 3 other countries for failing to fully co-operate with other nations in order to prevent tax evasion. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/04/2535014.htm?section=world)

Sanctions against the 4 countries are reported to follow soon. These are likely to adversely affect Malaysia and Labuan's effectiveness as a safe haven for Middle East and other investors , including financiers of Islamist and jihadist activities.

END

Is Osama bin Laden in Iran?

2009-04-02T19:13:18-07:00

Osama Bin Laden is in Iran, asserts Alan Howell Parrot, the director of The Union for the Conservation of Raptors (UCR), who for many years served as a Falconer for the rulers of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and members of Saudi Royal family. In that capacity he was a regular guest in the seasonal Falconry-hunting camps and had access to all participants. Parrot has been offering evidence of Bin Laden's sighting in Iran since November 2004 to a great number of U.S. government officials at the Department of Defense, the FBI, Senators and even to the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Gen. Michael V. Hayden. Government officials who asked to remain nameless confirmed Parrot's contact with the government. Still, no one responded.

Parrot's passion to save the falcons led him and his expert team to bin Laden.

In November 2004 a UCR field operator in Iran happened to meet bin Laden. Parrot brought the very detailed and seemingly convincing evidence to my attention. I then introduced him to former senior US military officials. Between November 2004 and January 2009 Parrot says he has "diligently reported UCR meetings with Bin Laden in Iran, to U.S. government agencies. At no time did the Bush Administration request interviews with any of the UCR field operators who tracked and met bin Laden in Iran." Parrot provided accounts of bin Laden's movement and details of six meetings UCR's operators had with bin Laden in Iran; some were held near Zehedan, in Southern Iran, others in a safe house North of Tehran and in Mashhad. This information was confirmed during a debriefing by an expert interrogator on march 2008.

Falconry is so popular in the Middle East, that the founder of the Saudi kingdom, Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman Al Saud, was known as "the Falcon of the Peninsula" (Al Saqr al Jazira). Saudi Prince Fahd bin Sultan, described Falconry as the Arabs' "form of golf, a place to relax and conduct business.''

Falconry is a 2,000-year-old tradition among Arabs, especially princes and shaikhs. They gather several times a year in well- equipped hunting camps in the Arabian deserts, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, among other places, to hunt with falcons that cost $100,000, and in some cases more than $2 million. Not surprisingly, the illegal trade in falcons is valued at more than $300 million annually.

Bin Laden is also known as an avid Falconer. Former White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, that in 1999 the U.S. planned to bomb a Falconry camp in Pakistan when Osama bin Laden was present." That raid, however, "was scrubbed because a minister from the United Arab Emirates was a member of the hunting party."

Parrot's story is as unconventional as he is. A Falconer, who in 1974, just 18 years old, began his career training hunting falcons for the Shah of Iran. He excelled in his work and was retained by wealthy Arabs in Kuwait and the Gulf States, who flew him regularly from Ithaca, NY -- he studied biology at Cornell University -- to the Middle East. He left school after 3 years in favor of trapping and training falcons for UAE president and Abu Dhabi's ruler Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayyan. From 1981- 1991 he continued to work for Zayed, who hosted him in his many palaces, where Parrot met and befriended many of the ruler's guests. Sheikh Zayed's recommendation opened doors to employment with other Arab leaders. Parrot also worked for Saudi Crown Prince -- now King -- Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.

A true bird lover, Parrot could not tolerate the illegal smuggling and abuse of falcons he witnessed the world over. Thus, from 1978 -1984 he volunteered to participated as a civilian undercover agent in "Operation Falcon," conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) to stop the multi-million dollar international smuggling of North American falcons to the Middle East. That operation resulted in the arrest of 300+ falcon smugglers the world over. Parrot also helped stop Prince Bandar, the former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., from the U.S. on board a Royal Saudi Airlines charted plane. Bandar paid his<a href="http://www.savethefalcons.org/powerpoint.asp"> $150,000</a> fine to the Department of Justice, from his Washington DC Riggs Bank account. It was the same account, which <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/us/at-riggs-bank-a-tangled-path-led-to-scandal.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3 ">Bandar's wife</a> used to pay two of the 9/11 hijackers. True to form, Bandar threatened the U.S. government with oil sanctions if the story leaked; not surprisingly, the public remained in the dark.

In praise of his work in Operation Falcon, Parrot received two letters of commendation from the Canadian government. Together with a dedicated team of like-minded falcon lovers, Parrot continued to collect evidence on falcon smuggling throughout Central Asia, Russia, China, and the Middle East. In 2001 he established The Union for the Conservation of Raptors (UCR), a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization. Its mandate pertains "to the conservation and sustainable management of raptors, with specialized expertise on Middle East falconry practices and smuggling cartels with operational linkage to al-Qaeda.

Over the years, Parrot witnessed how the Secretariat for the U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has violated its own mandate to protect the birds, by licensing illegal trade in sport-falcons to Arab rulers and sheikhs. This led to the creation of 'five star' tented cities erected throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, and Afghanistan, like the royal falconry camp that served as Al Qaeda's de-facto 'Board room,' referenced in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Encouraged by president-elect Barack Obama's statement on January 14, in an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, that his "preference obviously would be to capture or kill him [Bin Laden]", Parrot sent a letter to the <a href="http://www.rewardsforjustice.net">Rewards for Justice</a> program at the State Department detailing his efforts to track Bin Laden, and providing information of bin Laden's whereabouts. Parrot also noted that he had discussed the matter with Iranian officials and that "a negotiated and political (i.e. not-military) solution is available" with the Iranian leadership. The letter was sent on January 20, but Parrot has yet to hear from Washington.

Parrot claims that he has negotiated with Iranian officials the transfer of bin Laden from Iran "to the custody of the Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud al Faisal, whom I know personally," he said.

Since no one seems to know where bin Laden is located, why not explore Mr. Perrot's claims?

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It, is director of American Center for Democracy.

Narco-Terrorism Can Be Defeated

2009-03-18T13:28:42-07:00

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

Narco-Terrorists and the international criminal organizations that thrive on the illegal drug trade now threaten the national security of many nations. The nexus between transnational criminal organizations and terrorist groups does not end with illegal drug trafficking. Their partnerships are complex, linking illegal drugs, money, geography and politics. Yet, U.S. and international law-enforcement agencies overlook the connections between them, thereby unwittingly abetting the escalation in terrorism.

Terrorists' and criminals' mutually beneficial activities include: illegal arms trafficking, extortion and protection rackets; kidnapping; prostitution rings and human trafficking; credit card, social security and immigration fraud and identity theft; tax fraud; counterfeiting currencies, pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.; pirating videos, compact discs, tapes, and software; and illegal oil trade. The hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues fill the war chests of terrorists and criminals alike. Some of that money is used to undermine the political systems where these groups operate or target.

The March 2009 U.S. Department of State's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report documents "a direct connection between traditional Colombian drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and Middle Eastern money launderers tied to Hezbollah."

Back in 1987, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), then Chairman of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, warned: "If we are to wage an effective war on drugs, we must have a successful campaign in Mexico." Judging by the expansion of heroin and cocaine production and trafficking from Latin America, and the escalating violence in Mexico that now spills over to the United States and Canada, we are not winning.

And the threat is not limited to Mexican drug cartels; many criminal and drug trafficking organizations in the Western Hemisphere collaborate with Muslim terrorist groups like al- Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The Tri-Border Area (TBA -- Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay), for example, is a known center of their operations.

These anti-American narco-terrorist groups found a good ally in Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, who stopped cooperating with the U.S. drug eradication efforts in 2005. Chavez provides these groups with a safe haven from which to transfer money, arms and operatives to and from Syria, Southern Lebanon and Iran.

Meeting in Vienna on March 11, the 52nd session of the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), acknowledged that heroin and cocaine consumption had increased globally, while enforcement failed. Yet, the meeting did not offer better policies to reduce illegal drug production and consumption, which would lead to less crime and funding for terrorists.

Instead, it called to treat the problem "less like a war, and more like an effort to cure a social illness." Moreover, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, sees the users as victims, and therefore the "war" on drugs" as a human rights violation. "All too often, drug users suffer discrimination, [they] are forced to accept treatment," she said.

Incredibly, Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca argued: "We can't go against a culture, and that's what the international community has to understand." Similarly, the Economist's cover story argued for drug legalization since "prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world" -- implying that drug addiction afflicts only the poor.

However, at the same time, the U.N. study on Organized Crime and Its Threat to Security, warns that: "Because drug trafficking enriches criminals, destroys communities and even threatens nations, it has to be dealt with urgently and forcefully." Indeed, the report goes on to say that uncontrollable drug trade "even" causes terrorism.

The estimated $518 million that the Taliban collected from the heroin trade in 2007, according to the International Narcotics Control Board, facilitated their resurgence, growing influence and violence and forced the U.S. to deploy 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan -- in addition to the 38,000 already there.

On March 9, the Chief of U.S. National Guard Bureau Gen. Craig McKinley warned of the growing threat to U.S. national security through "the linkages between drug cartels through organized crime back to terrorist organizations [which] cannot be disputed."

Despite these recent acknowledgments, the U.S. seems reluctant to use the solution for this festering problem. Mycoherbicides, "fungus naturally existing in the soil," could safely control the opium poppy, coca plant, and cannabis, rendering them worthless. Section 1111 of Public Law 109-469, which was signed into law on December 29, 2006, required that the Drug Czar's office submit a plan within 90 days for an expedited scientific study of "the use of mycoherbicide as a means of illicit drug crop elimination...[it] shall include an evaluation of all likely human health and environmental impacts of mycoherbicides derived from the fungus naturally existing in the soil."

Twenty-six months later, this provision in the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 300-5 and unanimously in the Senate, has gone nowhere. Yet, the use of mycoherbicides in South America and Afghanistan will mitigate the production of heroin and cocaine and cut off the narco-terrorists' major money supply. This would free up billions of dollars used to fight the opium and coca trafficking and addiction and make those monies available to help fight terrorism directly. It would also free up funds for an array of social and governmental reforms in affected countries, and reduce the threat to our national security.

President Obama should immediately authorize the study as ordered in Section 1111 of Public Law 109-469. The completion of the study could help the U.S. to win the battle against terrorism, drug trafficking, and international crime.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It, is director of American Center for Democracy. The article was first published by the Huffington Post on April 17, 2009

Misery Pays

2009-03-09T15:59:24-07:00

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

Giving $5.2 billion to the Palestinian Authority (PA) will do little to bring real change in the condition of the Palestinian refugees or security in the Middle East. Instead of rebuilding the "shelters" in the refugee camps as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has done for decades, this huge sum of money should go to build new communities, industry and a civilian infrastructure for a viable Palestinian state.   

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared the U.S. has "worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure our funding is only used where and for whom it is intended and does not end up in the wrong hands."   The World Bank recommending that the donors give their "budget support" to the PA directly through its Central Treasury Account. It also suggested direct donations through other organizations such as: "the EU-PEGASE, the World Bank administered PRDP-Trust Fund," and a few others.   

The U.S., the World Bank and other donors rely on Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's promise that the money would not reach Hamas or be used for any terrorist activity. Yet, Fayyad, a former Resident Representative of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the West Bank and Gaza, has little control over PA funds in Fatah-controlled West Bank, let alone in Hamas-controlled Gaza.   

Fayyad himself stated many times that controlling Palestinian finances "is virtually impossible." Moreover, last month, despite Fatah-Hamas bloody disagreements, Fayyad diverted $21.5 million sent from Israel to Gaza to pay PA employees' salaries, to rebuild the houses of Gaza residents that were destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. On March 7th, Fayyad announced his resignation, to facilitate the Fatah unity government with Hamas.   

This was not the first time the Fatah-led government was sending money to Hamas. On Jan. 15, 2008, Fayyad's government declared it would give Hamas 40% ($3.1 billion) of the $7.4 billion that was pledged in December 2007 by international donors. Furthermore, in October, 2008, despite the bloody crackdown on Fatah members in Gaza, the PA was paying the salaries of at least 77,000 "loyal employees." Yet, before Hamas took over, there were only 21,000 PA paid loyalists in Gaza. Once the power-sharing negotiations between Hamas and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are completed, billions of dollars will go to Hamas, which continue to call for the destruction of Israel.   

Since the Oslo Accords, the PA received some $14 billion to $20 billion in international aid, according to a 2007 Funding for Peace Coalition (FPC) report to the British Parliament. Each Palestinian received $4,000 to $8,000 per year. However, of the $7 billion pledged international aid, only $5 billion were spent to assist more than 5 million Tsunami victims in more than 15 countries on two continents.

If the newly pledged $5.2 billion are distributed, each of the 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would receive $1,300 dollars. In comparison, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), provided in humanitarian aid for 2.5 million Darfur refugees from 2003 to 2006 -- only $100 per person annually.

The PA uses a large amount of the aid it receives to support the terrorist activities against Israel. Each Palestinian or Israeli Arab, imprisoned in an Israeli jail, is entitled to financial assistance from the Palestinian Authority, if he (or she) was sentenced for activity connected to the "struggle against the Israeli occupation."

Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi documented at least $40 million per year, paid to at least 11,600 (in march 2008) Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails. In addition, the PA uses its budget to assist thousands more released prisoners and pay bonuses to the families of suicide bombers. Thus, foreign aid to the PA should be given only when the PA publicly denounces terrorist activities against Israel and stop the support to the terrorists.

The billions of dollars poured into Gaza since Israel pulled out in 2005, have resulted in the strengthening of the radical Islamic Hamas. It keeps the Palestinians under its thumb poor and oppressed and uses their children and women as human shields. Hamas strives not only for the destruction of Israel. It hosts other terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, and uses the Gaza Strip as training grounds. With Iran's help, it threatens to undermine pro Western regimes in the region.

The only way to ensure the $5.2 billion produces a real change to the lives of the impoverished Palestinian in Gaza, create a viable Palestinian state and stability in the region, is by conditioning this money on the PA's cessation of all terrorist activities. Moreover, to ensure the funds do not reach Hamas and are used properly, the money should not be administered by any Palestinian organization, or Hamas supporting UNRWA , but by an international monitoring group.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is Director of American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed -- and How to Stop It.