Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (193681)	10/19/2001 2:04:43 AM
From: RON BL	Respond to of 769670

We agree on this . Can't win that war

To: Skywatcher who wrote (193681)	10/19/2001 5:48:54 AM
From: rich4eagle	Respond to of 769670

Man you are beating a drum that is too logical and will shut down too many pork barrels feeding on the illegality of drugs

To: Skywatcher who wrote (193681)	10/19/2001 10:40:02 AM
From: Judgement Proof.com	Respond to of 769670

KING'S RANSOM by SEYMOUR M. HERSH How vulnerable are the Saudi royals? Issue of 2001-10-22 Posted 2001-10-16 Since 1994 or earlier, the National Security Agency has been collecting electronic intercepts of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which is headed by King Fahd. The intercepts depict a regime increasingly corrupt, alienated from the country's religious rank and file, and so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to overthrow it. The intercepts have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and throughout the Persian Gulf region. "Ninety-six is the key year," one American intelligence official told me. "Bin Laden hooked up to all the bad guys—it's like the Grand Alliance— and had a capability for conducting large-scale operations." The Saudi regime, he said, had "gone to the dark side." newyorker.com

To: Skywatcher who wrote (193681)	10/19/2001 11:09:37 AM
From: Judgement Proof.com	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Tracking bin Laden's money flow leads back to Midland, Texas By Wayne Madsen On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White House Rose Gardeno announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and those who support them. “U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts,” Bush declared. “And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them.” But the president, who is now enjoying an astounding 92 percent approval rating, hasn’t always practiced what he is now preaching: Bush’s own businesses were once tied to financial figures in Saudi Arabia who currently support bin Laden. In 1979, Bush’s first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden’s, in Arbusto. In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact, Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to fund Osama bin Laden. BCCI defrauded depositors of $10 billion in the ’80s in what has been called the “largest bank fraud in world financial history” by former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During the ’80s, BCCI also acted as a main conduit for laundering money intended for clandestine CIA activities, ranging from financial support to the Afghan mujahedin to paying intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair. When Salem bin Laden died in 1988, powerful Saudi Arabian banker and BCCI principal Khalid bin Mahfouz inherited his interests in Houston. Bath ran a business for bin Mahfouz in Houston and joined a partnership with bin Mahfouz and Gaith Pharaon, BCCI’s frontman in Houston’s Main Bank. The Arbusto deal wasn’t the last time Bush looked to highly questionable sources to invest in his oil dealings. After several incarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation. When Harken ran into trouble a year later, Saudi Sheik Abdullah Taha Bakhsh purchased a 17.6 percent stake in the company. Bakhsh was a business partner with Pharaon in Saudi Arabia; his banker there just happened to be bin Mahfouz. Though Bush told the Wall Street Journal he had “no idea” BCCI was involved in Harken’s financial dealings, the network of connections between Bush and BCCI is so extensive that the Journal concluded their investigation of the matter in 1991 by stating: “The number of BCCI-connected people who had dealings with Harken—all since George W. Bush came on board—raises the question of whether they mask an effort to cozy up to a presidential son.” Or even the president: Bath finally came under investigation by the FBI in 1992 for his Saudi business relationships, accused of funneling Saudi money through Houston in order to influence the foreign policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations. Worst of all, bin Mahfouz allegedly has been financing the bin Laden terrorist network—making Bush a U.S. citizen who has done business with those who finance and support terrorists. According to USA Today, bin Mahfouz and other Saudis attempted to transfer $3 million to various bin Laden front operations in Saudi Arabia in 1999. ABC News reported the same year that Saudi officials stopped bin Mahfouz from contributing money directly to bin Laden. (Bin Mahfouz’s sister is also a wife of Osama bin Laden, a fact that former CIA Director James Woolsey revealed in 1998 Senate testimony.) When President Bush announced he is hot on the trail of the money used over the years to finance terrorism, he must realize that trail ultimately leads not only to Saudi Arabia, but to some of the same financiers who originally helped propel him into the oil business and later the White House. The ties between bin Laden and the White House may be much closer than he is willing to acknowledge . inthesetimes.com Wayne Madsen, an investigative journalist based in Washington, is the author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (193681)	10/19/2001 11:38:40 AM
From: Judgement Proof.com	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Citibank attacks money-laundering regulations By Lucy Komisar inthesetimes.com Citibank is leading a fight by American banks to gut the anti-moneylaundering laws currently being considered in Congress—laws that could significantly change the way banks do business for their wealthiest clients. Citibank is seeking an exception to a proposed ban on doing business with shell banks, which have no physical presence and are situated “virtually” in offshore zones to avoid taxes and regulations. The banks are used to hide and launder perhaps billions of dollars a year. “Citibank is the only major bank in the United States that admits to having shell banks as clients, and it doesn't want to give them up," says a congressional staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Citibank is the most active bank trying to gut the ban on shell banks, and the American Bankers Association is trotting behind them.” In an example of what having friends at the top can do for the financial services lobby, which is one of the largest and most powerful in Congress, Richard Small, director of Citibank’s anti-money-laundering department, lobbied the House and Senate committees to insert an exception that would allow U.S. banks to work with shell financial services companies, the staffer says. The clause was deleted in the House version, but at press time the Senate committee had yet to vote on the bill. “The House bill [makes it] look like they’re banning shell banks, but the exception makes the ban meaningless,” explains the staffer. Small, who until recently headed the anti-money-laundering office of the Federal Reserve, declined to comment. But a Citibank spokesman says that the banking conglomerate supports the legislation and that it is “working with U.S. government and industry associates to determine the most effective means to prevent the banking system worldwide from being used for criminal purposes.” Yet as recently as May, Citibank was forced to close two accounts held in its own offshore banks in the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands after a Senate investigation revealed that several million dollars in drug money had been laundered through the accounts. Both the accounts were from shell banks affiliated with financial services companies, for which Small was seeking the exception, and one with a securities firm linked to drug money. Citibank “closed the accounts of the two [banks] we reported on,” the staffer said, “but they have others.” The American Banking Association has been fighting along with Citibank to delete the “due diligence” clause in the legislation, which would require that banks make a concerted effort to verify the source of foreign funds they transfer or receive. Peter Blocklin, senior federal legislative representative for the ABA, told the New York Times that banks were “already doing due diligence.” But a congressional report released in March of this year said the opposite, charging four of the largest U.S. banks—Citibank, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America and First Union—with having inadequate money-laundering controls and weak due diligence practices. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), co-sponsor of the Senate bill, says the banks are in fact “asleep at the switch.” About $500 billion—or half of the global total—is laundered through U.S. banks each year, according to the Bureau of National Affairs. Jack Blum, a Washington lawyer who co-authored a U.N. report on offshore banking, estimates that $70 billion in taxes is lost every year when the richest U.S. taxpayers hide money in offshore banking accounts. Regardless, Republicans historically have been vehemently opposed to regulating money in U.S. banks, and the bills being considered are a radical about-face, brought about by the September 11 attacks as part of Bush’s anti-terrorism plan. In an area where the United States has been lax for decades, the proposed legislation is reasonably strong. But although the money-laundering controls are a significant step forward, they still ignore many of the problems in the U.S. banking and money-transfer system. The legislation permits, but does not require, the Treasury Department to stop U.S. banks from working with banks in countries where secrecy laws prevent cooperation with investigators (countries like the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas). It asks only a quick study of imposing regulations on investment companies and hedge funds, which are not currently regulated at all. And the Bush administration is not requiring suspicious activity reports (which banks are currently required to file for suspicious transactions over $10,000) from casinos, money transmitters like Western Union and stock brokerages—all of which, because they consistently handle large amounts of cash, are prime targets for money launderers. Until the United States closes these gaping loopholes in the system, the flow of illegal funds from the world’s wealthiest, and the world’s wealthiest criminals, will continue.