SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21981)12/29/2003 3:19:22 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793592
 
When the war came, it rooted for America to lose. When the war was won, it could do nothing but carp. At no point did it show any joy in the liberation of 23 million souls from tyranny, except in the form of the petulant "of course." As in: "Of course the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, but Bush lied!"

Very well written. The left is in a position where they have to hope we lose if Bush is to lose. An impossible place to be and face the public.

They are getting away with skirting the edges of it right now, because they are only fighting with one another. But even the major media is skittish about this approach, and does not like where it leads them.

When both sides engage next year, the "I'm for victory, but" approach is going to be in real trouble with the American public.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21981)12/29/2003 6:57:48 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793592
 
AL QAEDA'S CA$H

By PETER BROOKES
NY Post

December 29, 2003 -- PREVENTING terror attacks, like the one last week out of Paris, requires international cooperation and coordination. The same is true with fighting terrorist financing.
But it's clear that many countries - and international institutions - aren't doing enough to stem the flow of terrorist financing. The result: Terrorists have money for recruiting, training, planning and operating.

* Last week, for example, the U.S. Navy seized two tons of hashish in the Persian Gulf being moved by suspected al Qaeda operatives. The 54 bags, weighing 70 pounds apiece, have a street value of $4 million to $10 million.

This is a lot of money, considering 9/11 is estimated to have cost less than $500,000. Al Qaeda had always been suspected of running drugs to finance its operations - this may be the first real proof.

Al Qaeda is relying more on commodity trading in gold, gems, (including diamond-trading from various conflicts in Africa), weapons and now drugs, to move and earn money since surveillance and interdiction efforts of the global financial system has been intensified.

* Two weeks ago, six Arabs with suspected al Qaeda links were arrested in Syria carrying $23 million in cash, according to administration officials. (Syria has not confirmed this report.) If true, this is believed to be the largest netting of terrorist bulk cash since the War on Terror began over two years ago.

The good news is that Syria pickpocketed al Qaeda of $23 million. (Not that having $23 million in the hands of the terror-backing Syrians is a comfort either.) The bad news is that al Qaeda couriers were running around with $23 million in cash to some yet unknown destination.



That's a lot of scratch, especially considering the previous belief that al Qaeda's operating budget was in the tens of millions of dollars. So this event will either put a crimp in al Qaeda's finances - or its annual budget is a lot bigger than we thought.

The latter would be alarming, since the bin Laden boys have been known to finance operations by other terrorist groups around the world as well.

* Last month's terrorist bombings in Turkey (against two synagogues and a British bank and consulate) were funded with $150,000 of al Qaeda money, the Associated Press reports. An accomplice of the bombers said that $50,000 came into Turkey via courier, while $100,000 came from the local head of al Qaeda operations. These operations killed 61 and wounded several hundred.

Terrorist operations can be cheap (e.g., Bali: $35,000; U.S.S. Cole: $50,000), and, regrettably, cash for them seems to be pretty readily available. To date, $138 million in terrorist-linked funds have been frozen globally, but $115 million of that came in the first year after 9/11.

* Perhaps most disturbing: A suspected, major al Qaeda financier is still doing business in Europe, according to a new U.N. report.

The al Taqwa financial empire operates in the Middle East, Europe and the Caribbean; it has reportedly funneled tens of millions of dollars to al Qaeda, Hamas and other terror groups via Muslim charities and informal (unregulated) remittance networks, known as hawalas.

A host of U.N. resolutions (i.e., 1267, 1373, 1390, and 1455) form a solid legal basis for freezing terrorist assets globally and require the imposition of sanctions on terrorist groups and those associated with them.

In response, terror backers liquidate their fronts, then reopen under new names - sometimes in different countries. That's how al Taqwa still operates businesses in Europe. Last week, the United States imposed sanctions on Liechtenstein-based Hochburg AG, the new name of the al Taqwa conglomerate.

Terrorist-associated charities, such as the infamous al Haramain Islamic Foundation, are often shuttering one set of offices to open another in a different town in the same country to avoid detection. Al Haramain recently did this in Bosnia, reappearing under the name of Vazir. (Washington imposed sanctions on it last week, too.)

The terrorist financial system is a global operation with significant resources and multifaceted methodologies for earning and moving money. Global financial counterterror efforts are still catching up; they need to be strengthened and harmonized. Many countries, especially in Europe, have not done enough to deal with individuals and companies that have ties to terrorism.

The United States - and the international community - must pressure states that still aren't cracking down on terror funding. In some cases, legal frameworks need to be developed that allow not only the freezing of bank accounts, but the seizing of businesses that finance terrorism, such as al Taqwa.

We can arrest operatives and preempt attacks, but we have to shut off the terror funding stream, too. Terrorism can be done on the cheap, but it is not free. Breaking the bank is a fundamental element to winning this global struggle.

Peter Brookes is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org). E mail: peterbrookes@heritage.org



Home

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21981)12/29/2003 4:56:12 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793592
 
Drezner:

PRAGMATISM OR PRINCIPLE?: The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times both had Sunday stories suggesting that the Bush administration is drastically scaling back its original plan to remake Iraq in order to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis by the June timetable.

The theme in both stories is that this is due to pragmatism triumphing over neocon principle. A few facts to mess up that meme, however. First, über-pragmatist Brent Scowcroft -- who was not particularly eager to invade Iraq this time around -- sides with the neocons on wanting a more deliberate transition in the Los Angeles Times. Second, the transfer of sovereignty is not the drop-dead date for restructuring Iraq's polity -- there's even the possibility that creating a sovereign government would facilitate rather than impede reforms. Third, what's not mentioned in either story is that beyond Karl Rove, the "international community" has been pushing for an early transfer of sovereignty as well. Saudi Arabia, for one, won't talk substantively about Iraqi debt reduction until a sovereign government has been established in Baghdad.

Given that large numbers of U.S. troops are going to be in Iraq for the duration, and given that this presence (and not the sovereignty transfer) will keep Iraq on the front pages, could the quicker transition have anything to do with.... international cooperation?

That last sentence reads better if you say it like Dr. Evil, by the way. (posted by Daniel Drezner)
andrewsullivan.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21981)12/29/2003 9:44:12 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793592
 
We don't get much better news than this, Nadine!

Heads may roll over Hutton, BBC admits

Matt Wells, media correspondent
Tuesday December 30, 2003
The Guardian

Senior BBC executives may be forced to resign when the Hutton inquiry reports, a corporation director admitted in an unusually candid radio interview last night.
Caroline Thomson, the BBC's director of policy and legal affairs, said the Today programme report that led to Lord Hutton's judicial investigation fell short of the "truth and accuracy" that are the "gold standard of the BBC". She said the concessions made by the BBC during the inquiry had been "spectacular".

Her comments were noticeably less bullish than an interview given by the director general, Greg Dyke, last week, when he all but ruled out high-level resignations.

Ms Thomson conceded that the BBC's regulatory structure, in which the organisation's editorial impartiality is upheld by its board of governors, was "out of kilter with modern fashions of regulation".

Over the past few weeks, the BBC has been preparing the ground for the Hutton report by making a number of changes to structures and editorial procedures in response to the expected criticism. Mr Dyke has appointed a deputy to oversee the complaints and compliance procedures, and the corporation is shortly due to announce tighter controls over the breaking of controversial stories.

Ms Thomson, speaking on Radio 4's PM programme, said Andrew Gilligan's original Today story, in which he reported concerns about the September 2002 dossier that made the case for war on Iraq, was not up to scratch. "Truth and accuracy are the gold standard ... but you don't always achieve it and we rather spectacularly had to admit that we hadn't got the entire details of the Hutton story, the Gilligan story right."

Gilligan reported claims that Downing Street had "sexed up" the dossier, prompting an incendiary row with Alastair Campbell, then director of communications at No 10. A government weapons expert, David Kelly, was revealed as Gilligan's source; he later apparently committed suicide, leading to the inquiry by Lord Hutton.

Ms Thomson said the inquiry's fall-out would not prevent the BBC from breaking stories. There was a "proper tradition of investigative reporting" in the BBC, which would continue.

She indicated that the fate of executives depended on the strength of criticism in Lord Hutton's report, due for publication next month. "The BBC will see what Hutton says and then decide what is the appropriate course of action to take on it," Ms Thomson said.

Pressed by interviewer Eddie Mair on whether the BBC would consider resignations, she said: "It does not rule them in or out."

Ms Thomson said she "completely accepted" that the governors had two competing roles in upholding the BBC's independence from government, and ensuring complaints were properly investigated. But she said: "The governors behaved very well in balancing out their two roles when we had the Hutton story. What they did was, they asked the tough questions in private and defended in public - which is what they are required to do in the way they are currently set up."

There are concerns that this process is opaque. Jocelyn Hay, chairman of Voice of the Listener and Viewer pressure group, expressed a hope that the process of renewing the BBC's royal charter would result in an improved set-up. "We hope that governance and decision making will be more transparent," she told PM.
guardian.co.uk