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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Geoff Altman who wrote (29986)12/2/2008 3:52:50 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Yep!

I noticed THESE direct QUOTES from Obama's speech in the newspaper article you posted:

"The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

And this one:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again.... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

So, I suggest that the President-elect should be held accountable for the ACTUAL WORDS that he SPOKE --- and not for any mangled mishmash of a paraphrasing job that some newspaper reporter or his editor might have done.

(As you can see... the first paragraph of you year old article was all paraphase and no quote....)

So possibly this is where Peter's mis-remembering began?

There was no such direct quote (however some editor or reporter somewhere seems to have 're-phrased' things around to suggest something more along the lines of what Peter thinks he is 'remembering Obama saying'.... :-)

Note also: that what Obama suggested his policy would be has now been officially adopted by President Bush, and authorized by his executive order this last Summer... and placed into action more than a DOZEN TIMES thus far already.



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (29986)12/19/2008 9:18:13 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
REVIEW & OUTLOOK DECEMBER 19, 2008 The Real 'Torture' Disgrace
The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country.

The release of Carl Levin's report on the Bush Administration's alleged "torture" policies was a formality: The Senator's conclusions were politically predetermined long ago. Still, the credulity and acclaim that has greeted this agitprop is embarrassing, even by Washington standards.


According to the familiar "torture narrative" that Mr. Levin sanctifies, President Bush and senior officials sanctioned detainee abuse, first by refusing to accord al Qaeda members Geneva Convention rights, and second by conspiring to rewrite the legal definition of torture. The new practices were then imposed on military leaders and spread through the chain of command. Therefore, Mr. Bush, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their deputies are morally -- and legally -- responsible for all prisoner abuse since 9/11, not least Abu Ghraib.

Nearly every element of this narrative is dishonest. As officials testified during Mr. Levin's hearings and according to documents in his possession, senior officials were responding to requests from the CIA and other commanders in the field. The flow was bottom up, not top down. Those commanders were seeking guidance on what kind of interrogation was permissible as they tried to elicit information from enemies who want to murder civilians. At the time, no less than Barack Obama's Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, was saying that terrorists didn't qualify for Geneva protections.
This was the context in which the Justice Department wrote the so-called "torture memos" of 2002 and 2003. You'd never know from the Levin jeremiad that these are legal -- not policy -- documents. They are attempts not to dictate interrogation guidelines but to explore the legal limits of what the CIA might be able to do.

It would have been irresponsible for those charged with antiterror policy to do anything less. In a 2007 interview former CIA director George Tenet described the urgency of that post-9/11 period: "I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again . . . Plot lines that I don't know -- I don't know what's going on inside the United States." Actionable intelligence is the most effective weapon in the war on terror, which can potentially save thousands of lives.
We know that the most aggressive tactic ever authorized was waterboarding, which was used in only three cases against hardened, high-ranking al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah after he was picked up in Pakistan in 2002. U.S. officials say the information he gave up foiled multiple terror plots and led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11. As Dick Cheney told ABC this week, "There was a time there, three or four years ago, when about half of everything we knew about al Qaeda came from one source" -- KSM.

Starting in 2002, key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, were fully briefed by the CIA about its activities, amounting to some 30 sessions before "torture" became a public issue. None of them saw fit to object. In fact, Congress has always defined torture so vaguely as to ban only the most extreme acts and preserve legal loopholes. At least twice it has had opportunity to specifically ban waterboarding and be accountable after some future attack. Members declined.
As for "stress positions" allowed for a time by the Pentagon, such as hooding, sleep deprivation or exposure to heat and cold, they are psychological techniques designed to break a detainee, but light years away from actual torture. Perhaps the reason Mr. Levin released only an executive summary with its unsubstantiated charges of criminal behavior -- instead of the hundreds of pages of a full declassified version -- is that the evidence doesn't fit the story. If it did, Mr. Levin or his staff would surely have leaked the details.

Not one of the 12 nonpartisan investigations in recent years concluded that the Administration condoned or tolerated detainee abuse, while multiple courts martial have punished real offenders. None of the dozen or so Abu Ghraib trials and investigations have implicated higher ups; the most senior officer charged, a lieutenant colonel, was acquitted in 2006. Former Defense Secretary Jim Schlesinger's panel concluded that the abuses were sadistic behavior by the "night shift."
In Today's Opinion Journal

Now that Mr. Obama is on his way to the White House, even some Democrats are acknowledging the complicated security realities. Dianne Feinstein, a Bush critic who will chair the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, recently told the New York Times that extreme cases might call for flexibility. "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," she said (our emphasis). Ms. Feinstein later put out a statement that all interrogations should be conducted within the more specific limits of the U.S. Army Field Manual but said she will "consider" other views. But that is already the law for most of the government. What the Bush Administration has insisted on is an exception for the CIA to use other techniques (not waterboarding) in extreme cases.

As for Mr. Levin, his real purpose is to lay the groundwork for war-crimes prosecutions of Bush officials like John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Jim Haynes who acted in good faith to keep the country safe within the confines of the law. Messrs. Obama and Holder would be foolish to spend their political capital on revenge, but Mr. Levin is demanding an "independent" commission to further politicize the issue and smear decent public servants.

As Mr. Levin put it in laying on his innuendo this week, a commission "may or may not lead to indictments or civil action." It will also encourage some grandstanding foreign prosecutor to arrest Mr. Rumsfeld and other Bush officials like Pinochet if they ever dare to leave the U.S. Why John McCain endorsed this Levin gambit is the kind of mystery that has defined, and damaged, his career. We hope other Republicans push back.

Mr. Levin claims that Bush interrogation programs "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives." The truth is closer to the opposite. The second-guessing of Democrats is likely to lead to a risk-averse mindset at the CIA and elsewhere that compromises the ability of terror fighters to break the next KSM. The political winds always shift, but terrorists are as dangerous as ever.

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (29986)2/3/2009 10:04:44 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Dodd's Peek-A-Boo Disclosure
The Senator's modified, limited mortgage hangout.
FEBRUARY 3, 2009

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has finally, sort of, kind of, ended 193 days of stonewalling about his sweetheart loans from former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. At least he did if you were a fast reader and were one of the few reporters he invited to his Hartford office yesterday to review -- but not copy or take -- more than 100 pages of documents related to his 2003 mortgage financings through Countrywide's "Friends of Angelo" program.


These are the files that Mr. Dodd pledged to make public after the news broke last summer that the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee had received preferential treatment from Countrywide. At first, Mr. Dodd denied everything. Later, he conceded that he'd been given special treatment but thought it was "more of a courtesy."

Heck, we'd all love the kind of courtesy that would have saved Mr. Dodd $75,000 over the life of the two loans he refinanced to the tune of $800,000, according to an analysis by Portfolio magazine. The savings came from rock-bottom interest rates and a free "float-down" -- the right to borrow at a lower rate if interest rates fall before you've closed on the loan.

On Monday, with interest rates -- even for non-VIPs -- near historic lows, Mr. Dodd announced that he would refinance the sweetheart loans with another lender. The rates on the two Friends of Angelo loans were 4.5% and 4.25%, so the Senator will probably end up paying a bit more than he is now. But getting out from under the original loans doesn't shed any light on the key question: Whether Mr. Dodd knew that he got the red-carpet treatment because of his central role in regulating the financial industry. That's what former Countrywide employee Robert Feinberg has claimed to us and others.

We don't know whether the documents Mr. Dodd briefly showed yesterday illuminate this mystery or not, because he didn't release them to us, or to the public or his constituents. Perhaps the reporters he allowed to take a quick peak will tell us more. What he did release to everyone was a set of fact sheets that purport to show there was nothing favorable about the terms Mr. Dodd and his wife received from Countrywide, along with a consultant's report that reaches the same conclusion. Mr. Dodd's office did not respond to our request for the documents themselves, which he promised to release more than six months ago.

But consultant reports -- prepared at the behest of a law firm hired by Mr. Dodd to help him through the Countrywide mess -- tell us nothing about what Mr. Dodd knew and when he knew it. Instead, they are an attempt to change the subject. Mr. Feinberg has said that Friends of Angelo were regularly reminded that they were getting special treatment -- otherwise, what was the point? And he claims to have Countrywide documents that prove that Mr. Dodd was aware that Countrywide had done him favors. Those documents may or may not be among those that Mr. Dodd played peek-a-boo with Monday, but we still don't know. Mr. Dodd said he's "sorry" he didn't release the documents sooner -- just not sorry enough to actually release them, apparently.

Countrywide was for years the biggest single customer of Fannie Mae, the giant government-sponsored mortgage securitizer that has since gone into federal conservatorship. Much of Countrywide's business was built around its ability to sell loans to Fannie, and Mr. Mozilo helped push Fannie to accept dodgier and dodgier paper. Mr. Dodd in turn supported this goal by pressing Fannie to do more for "affordable" housing.

This nexus between Mr. Dodd's public duties and Countrywide's interests is a serious matter involving the Senator's personal ethics and accountability to taxpayers who will be paying for Fannie's bad loans for years to come. If, as Mr. Dodd claims, he has nothing to hide, then why is he still hiding it?

online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (29986)2/23/2009 9:28:53 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
The Saudi Cabinet Shake-Up Portends Real Reform

The king recognizes that corruption and stagnation could ruin his oil-rich nation.

FEBRUARY 23, 2009



By KAREN ELLIOTT HOUSE

The sweeping cabinet changes Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah announced this month indicate he has finally found the confidence to do more than talk about reforming his unhappy kingdom.



Out is the religious sheikh who headed the Supreme Judicial Council, the kingdom's top court, which last year upheld a ruling punishing a young rape victim with 200 lashes. This forced King Abdullah, who has talked repeatedly of judicial reform and greater justice, to step in to save the girl -- and his own reputation. Out also is the head of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice -- or so-called religious police -- who stroll the streets enforcing prayer times, dress codes and separation of the sexes. In addition, the ministers of justice, education, information and health are new. And the Consultative Council, the kingdom's appointed 150-member parliament, has a new head. All these individuals are more moderate than those they replaced.



Obviously, new faces don't guarantee real reform. But what is clear is that the 86-year-old king at last has acted to remove individuals who have used their positions to block his tentative efforts at reform for the past half dozen years. Even before becoming king in 2005, Crown Prince Abdullah began to talk of religious tolerance, of interfaith dialogue, of assembling Sunnis and Shiites (apostates in the minds of his Wahhabi religious leaders). He opened space for dialogue among Saudi citizens in the press and public gatherings. He sought to create new opportunities for women, to improve education and reform justice.



But over the years, as actions haven't followed rhetoric, Saudis have increasingly become cynical about whether the king seriously wants reform or is simply seeking to prolong the monarchy. In reality, the answer is both -- the king appears to have concluded that prolonging the monarchy requires reform.



It seems clear from my extended visits to the kingdom in recent years that King Abdullah -- like a Saudi Mikhail Gorbachev -- has come to recognize that cultural stultification, political stagnation and pervasive corruption have trapped this oil-rich kingdom in a torpor that may appear outwardly stable but festers with internal frustration. Even as oil income rises, unemployment and poverty grow. Even as women become better educated, the majority can't find jobs. Even as the religious establishment brandishes the myth of exceptional religiosity, drug use, car theft and rape are on the rise. Some change seems essential to preserve the rulers by satisfying at least some demands of the ruled.



What is less clear is why King Abdullah acted just now. But given the king's cautious nature, his decision dramatically to change his cabinet -- a power he has had since becoming king -- almost surely is connected to an imminent change in senior leadership. The man who runs the defense ministry, Crown Prince Sultan, 82, is said to be near death with cancer in a New York hospital. He is the once-powerful leader of a band of six surviving brothers, one of whom is likely to succeed him as crown prince. These Sudari brothers, so called after their mother's name, have never been personally or politically close to King Abdullah, their half brother.



Royal family politics is far more opaque than any smoke-filled democratic caucus room. So, precisely how near death the crown prince is, who will succeed him, which princes are maneuvering to affect that decision, is unknown -- most likely even to other senior princes. But King Abdullah has a history of not offending the family: He waited patiently as crown prince for a decade while the late King Fahd, his Sudari half-brother, was incapacitated from a stroke, yet didn't press other senior princes to declare him king lest he risk splitting the royal family. As a result, one has to assume there now is agreement among key senior princes for this new cabinet and the change it represents.



Whereas in many countries from Russia to France to the U.S., younger leaders are having to deal with the problems of aging societies, one of the fundamental paradoxes of Saudi Arabia is that the leadership is so old and the population so young. The founding scion of modern Saudi Arabia fathered 45 sons, 16 of whom still live as potential heirs to the throne, ranging in age from 85 to 66. Even the experienced grandsons of the founder, such as Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal or Mecca Governor Khalid al Faisal, are older than 65. Meanwhile, because of a burgeoning birth rate and improved infant mortality, one in every two Saudis is 15 years old or younger.



These young Saudis have been reared on satellite television and the Internet, both of which came to Saudi Arabia in the 1990s and abruptly opened this closed kingdom to the outside world. The young -- whether modernists or Islamists or the bulk of young people who sit between these two extremes -- represent a force for change that must be channeled. This is part of the reason for the king's focus on reforming education. The other is the need to prepare young Saudis to be able to find jobs.



The new education minister, Faisal bin Abdullah, a son-in-law of the king, surely has his work cut out for him. He's a modest, modern man who loves photography and supports his wife's efforts to expand opportunities for women; his appointment means that at least at the top of the educational bureaucracy there is support for reforming education to encourage inquiry, not simply to propagate a strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. Despite spending roughly $32 billion annually on all forms of education, in 2007 Saudi Arabia ranked very poorly in science and even worse in math (54 out of 56 countries) in testing conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Saudi education officials say 140,000 boys graduate from high school each year and another 80,000 drop out. Even those who complete university have difficulty finding jobs; unemployment among young Saudis is estimated at 30%.



The challenges are similarly daunting to reform a judicial system dominated by a religious establishment long accustomed to controlling both education and justice to propagate its literalist interpretation of the Quran. The king's replacement of key judicial figures with at least somewhat more moderate men was an important step. But perhaps of greater significance, he expanded the Council of Ulema, the highest religious authority in the kingdom, to include representatives of all four major Sunni Islamic schools of thought, not just the most conservative Hanbali school favored by the Wahhabis. In short, King Abdullah, the cautious reformer, is seeding this conservative religious council with at least a few potential allies. He still omitted Shiites, however, who comprise 15% of the kingdom's population, from any religious representation in the council.



What all this adds up to is not a direct confrontation between the aged king and the religious establishment, which remains one of the twin pillars, along with the royal family, of the Saudi state. Nevertheless, in a country where the norm has been one tentative step forward and two back, this time the king has reversed that pattern to take at least several serious steps in the direction of real reform.



Ms. House, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and 1984 Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for her coverage of the Middle East, is researching a book on Saudi society.



online.wsj.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (29986)12/21/2009 11:23:33 PM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
EXCLUSIVE: Dick Cheney on the Political Hot Topics of 2009
by Human Events

12/21/2009

Human Events Editors Tom Winter and Jed Babbin interviewed former Vice President Dick Cheney, HUMAN EVENTS' 2009 Conservative of the Year, at his home on December 1. Here, edited, are highlights from the interview:

Q: A young man, growing up in Wyoming -- how did Richard Cheney become a conservative?

CHENEY: I suppose it didn’t have to happen that way. I grew up in a family that was basically Democrats...My political experience really began … when I got an internship in the Wyoming state legislature...



In the spring of ’69, [Donald] Rumsfeld took over the Office of Economic Opportunity... They’d never seen a Republican in the anti-poverty program...I went to work for Don and worked for him for the first Nixon term for four years. We spent about two years at OEO and then a brief stint in the White House and then about a year and a half on wage-price controls...

But it was an experience in both cases -- the anti-poverty program. I was working with Head Start and Volunteers in Service to America, community action agencies, funding community organizers. We used to sit around and say, “What the hell is a community organizer?”...

Q: One of the things that struck us this year is the Obama spending spree...But the good result of it was the Tea Party movement.

CHENEY: I have been intrigued with the movement, too. I think it’s been fascinating to watch and I think it’s basically working. I think it owes its success in part -- I’m guessing -- to the fact that it is somewhat divorced from the Republican Party....The people I’ve talked with, as I get out around the country, really care very, very deeply about it and felt like this is an opportunity to express themselves. After all, that’s what democracy is about, and I think it’s basically a very healthy movement. I’m a fan of the folks who want to go participate in a Tea Party.

Q: You going to do it yourself any time?

CHENEY: Well I don’t know.

Q: As part of your presidential campaign?

(Laughter)

CHENEY: No, I’m not mounting a presidential campaign.

Q: What pushed you into giving that speech [at AEI in May] and making the points you made on interrogations and gathering of intelligence?

CHENEY: When I left government, I did not plan to be active in any political sense of the word. I didn’t have a plan to go out and engage in controversy or make political speeches. What got me here was the notion that they were going to do two things: One was to investigate and possibly prosecute the CIA personnel who carried out our policies. And the other was to go after the attorneys in the Justice Department...who had done yeoman’s work and responded when we needed to have someone sit down and say, “Look, where’s the red line here, how far can you go, what are the limitations and prohibitions on what we can do.”...

And I thought it was just plain wrong not to stand up and defend them as well as to defend what we’d done. And it didn’t look to me like anybody was going to do it if I didn’t do it. And I was perfectly happy to do it.

One of the things that influenced my thinking on it was that I served on the Iran Contra committee back in the Reagan Administration, the late ’80s.

Q: Ollie North and Lawrence Walsh.

CHENEY: I’d been the ranking Republican on the committee and gone through that whole process for two years and saw some very good men very badly treated in the sense that none of the senior leadership stood up and said, “Look, they were carrying out our policy. You got a problem with policy, you got a problem with me.”

But I told myself...that if this ever happened again, I didn’t want to see a situation where people in responsibility stood back and didn’t say anything, and the folks down below who’d carried out the policy that had been decided upon in appropriate fashion took all the hits.…

Q: One of the things you also talked about in your AEI speech was the fact that [9/11 operational mastermind] KSM -- Kahlid Sheik Muhammed -- was very eager to get to New York.… One of the things that we’re struggling with is to get a senior view of whether or not this actually puts people in danger in New York.

CHENEY: My concern has been especially focused on the fact that we are giving these guys one hell of a platform. KSM said that he would be happy to be tried before a military commission and plead guilty and to be executed. And what we are saying of course is, “No, no, no, we are going to take you up to New York, get you a lawyer, and plead not guilty, and you can get all the air time you want.” ...

Q: One of the things that has struck us ever since Obama started committing acts of foreign policy: he seems uncomfortable with the idea that the United States is a superpower. Is that your perception?

CHENEY: ...One of the things that I thought was surprising and I don’t really understand, was that he [Obama] took a pass on celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Angela Merkel is one of the world leaders I like, and she’s been good for us to work with. This was a very big deal for her, but it was a huge deal for those of us who remember what it was like when the wall went up and divided Germany and all that that entailed...Obama has time to go to Copenhagen to push Chicago for the Olympics but he doesn’t have time to go to Berlin to put in an appearance and celebrate with important U.S. allies one of the most significant historic events of the last couple of centuries.

He comes across to me as naïve, inexperienced and he doesn’t have the sense of history of the American role in the world that I like to see an American President pay homage to occasionally. I think most of our Presidents over the years have. Whether they are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, agree or disagree, they go out of their way to make the case to preserve and protect that perception that the United States is a unique place....

Q: I assume you are still defending the Bush tax cut that the Democrats are constantly saying should be ended?

CHENEY: ...The worst thing you can do if you are really interested in reestablishing a growing economy and creating jobs and creating wealth and expanding business and generating more revenue for the federal government is to have a strong viable private sector and in my mind that calls for tax cuts, not tax increases.

Q: And that’s how you would create more jobs?

CHENEY: I would. But you have to work the spending side in terms of trying to wrap up some of the spending that’s going on out there....

Q: Do conservatives in Congress still think health care can be stopped?

CHENEY: There are few I think that believe that, but I think there is also a strong argument to be made that Obama and Harry Reid will do anything to get that piece of paper on their desk signed that declares health reform. What they have to give away to get that, I guess they are ready to do that.

Q: Can we operate successfully against the terrorist enemies without settling the disputes between Congress and the administration and engaging the intelligence community on a workable basis?

CHENEY: That’s an interesting question..... I thought what was at stake, and still do to this day, is this notion of whether or not we’re at war....

What happened on 9/11, I felt … really changed everything. Here you’ve got a situation in which you had the World Trade Center destroyed in New York, 16 acres of downtown Manhattan devastated, laid waste, big hole in the Pentagon -- if it hadn’t been for the folks on flight 93 who took over the plane and crashed it in Pennsylvania, they would have hit, my guess is, either the White House or the Capitol, some evidence to support both of those -- and 2,000 dead Americans. You can’t call that a law-enforcement problem. That’s a war....

So, if you begin to think in those terms, then you get into the situation where you need to use all national means to be able to defend and protect the country....It leads you back to the notion that first and foremost you’ve got to get really great intelligence on al Qaeda, because we didn’t know that much about them, frankly, at 9/11. ....

What we did [on the Terror Surveillance Program] was to get the Congress involved, and specifically the chairman and ranking member of the intelligence committees, House and Senate. And about every three months, we used to have them down, and I’d have [NSA Director] Mike Hayden and [CIA Director] George Tenet come to my office. And we did this in my office in the West Wing. And we would brief the chairman and ranking member of the committees on how the program was working, specific case histories of how it had been applied, just to keep them up to speed.

We then had a situation arise where there was a legal dispute over our authority to do what we were doing, so then we brought in not only the four chairmen -- the committee chairmen and the ranking members -- we also brought in the speaker, the majority and minority leader of the House, and the majority and minority leader of the Senate, plus those other four -- nine altogether -- and had them in the Situation Room in the basement of the White House. And I presided over the meeting. Again we did the whole brief...Then I went around the table, and I asked, “Do you think we should continue the program?” They were unanimous. “Absolutely.” There wasn’t a single voice in opposition to continuing the program. So then I said, “Do you think we ought to come to Capitol Hill and get more explicit legislative authorization than we’ve got now?” And they were unanimous again, “No,” because if we did, that’d tell the bad guys how we were reading their mail.… The point was we played it by the book. We briefed the Congress, we briefed the congressional leadership.

Q: Is there more out there that you feel should be released beyond what’s already been released here?

CHENEY: I thought these two documents basically answered the mail...I’m not ordinarily the person who’s out there pushing to declassify, declassify, declassify -- it sort of goes against my basic character.

Click here read the complete transcript of HUMAN EVENTS' interview with Dick Cheney.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMAN EVENTS is the news source President Reagan called his "favorite newspaper" and we still hold high the Reaganesque principles of free enterprise, limited government and, above all, a staunch, unwavering defense of American freedom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
humanevents.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (29986)2/13/2010 3:31:50 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Is al Qaeda Bankrupt?
Nathan Vardi, 02.11.10, 04:00 PM EST
Forbes Magazine dated March 01, 2010
Desperate for funds, the terrorist group has turned to affiliates that rely more and more on crime.

Jihadists had a name for Abd al Hamid al Mujil--"the million dollar man." Al Mujil had forged a personal relationship with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, spending parts of the late 1990s in Afghanistan. In those days the Kuwaiti-born al Mujil traveled to various Arab countries to meet with bin Laden's deputies. As recently as 2006 al Mujil conducted fundraising in Saudi Arabia, where he was executive director of the eastern province branch of the International Islamic Relief Organization, a charitable group. He provided donor funds directly to al Qaeda, says the U.S. government, and was particularly focused on helping al Qaeda affiliates in the Philippines by handing out cash to a supporter who pretended to be on an Islamic pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. These days al Mujil is out of business. That's largely thanks to efforts by the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.N. Security Council. Designating al Mujil as a terrorist financier and singling out the Philippine and Indonesian offices of his charity, they have prohibited U.S. financial firms from conducting any transaction with him or those offices and required U.N. member states to freeze his assets. The Saudi Arabian government has met that requirement, in addition to restricting the transfer of iiro funds outside of the kingdom. The charity's U.S. lawyer says the iiro is not a terrorist organization and has done nothing wrong. Al Mujil, he adds, no longer has a role with the charity.

Such actions, across many fronts, have made a significant dent in al Qaeda's treasury. On the eve of the attacks on America al Qaeda was running a $30 million annual budget, according to the CIA. The terrorists were tapping into deep-pocketed Saudi and other Arab donors. Now they are hard up. Witness the pathetically ill-equipped and mistrained underwear bomber.

forbes.com

As the feds continue to track, cut off and prosecute al Qaeda financiers, European nations, particularly the U.K., have stepped up their work in this area. Saudi Arabia has finally cracked down on contributions from charities and donors that used to flow to terror groups. International bodies, like the U.N. and the Financial Action Task Force, have sustained a coordinated effort with rules that have been adopted by many governments and banks in places where bombers used to get funds. "Al Qaeda is in a weaker financial state than it has been for a number of years," says David Cohen, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for terrorist financing (See Sidebar: David Cohen's War). As evidence of success he points to the rush of public pleas for financial help coming from al Qaeda leaders, outstretched turban in hand. He hastens to add: "No one is arguing that because al Qaeda core is in a weakened financial state that it is disabled."

Slide Show: How al Qaeda Makes Its Money

Shallower though its pockets may be, the group still poses a threat: A small sum spent cleverly on the right explosive in the right place can do a lot of damage. The Christmas Day bomber, a rich kid from Nigeria, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, paid for his own ticket in cash but got training and equipment from a then little known affiliate in Yemen, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Al Qaeda is much less of a top-down organization than it once was, when it called the shots and funded terrorist operations from Afghanistan. Then, it told operatives to focus on assignments and not to worry about how to subsidize them. Today it's a much looser organization of affiliates--more of a McDonald's ( MCD - news - people ), if you will, than a General Motors. Its decentralized partners and cells around the world pick their own targets, concoct their own strategies and raise their own funds. They may draw inspiration from al Qaeda headquarters somewhere in the Chitral region of northwest Pakistan, even kick back money to the leadership. But, like franchisees, they are largely on their own.

The change, U.S. officials like Cohen say, is a direct result of the pressures the U.S. government has placed on terrorist money men. That has forced al Qaeda to go underground. While it still relies on individual donations from the Persian Gulf region, these contributions now move outside the formal financial system, through cash couriers and informal money transfer shops known as hawalas. In addition, the network seems to be turning to organized crimes like kidnapping and drug running. The shipment of cocaine from Latin America to Europe is a source of funding.

Fundraising efforts have also embraced new technologies--like the bit of telemarketing by Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second-in-command, who solicited donations through cell phone recordings that were distributed in 2008. Last June Abu al Yazid, a former al Qaeda money man who now runs its Afghan operations, made his pitch on a Web site controlled by al Qaeda leaders: "If a holy fighter does not have the money to get weapons, food, drink and the materials for jihad, he cannot fight jihad." The Internet, of course, is a terrorist's best friend when it comes to recruiting. Not that they've given up on old-school methods like extortion. "A broader trend that shows their financial troubles is they are shaking down recruits for money," says Michael Jacobson, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who specializes in terror financing. A handful of people, arrested in 2008 by French and Belgian authorities, had traveled to Pakistan for al Qaeda training--and were forced to cough up euros for courses, a room and weapons.

Clearly the money hasn't stopped; it is coming in smaller dollops via other channels. That fact has prompted critics to complain that the U.S. government has wasted its efforts trying to cut off the visible end of financing. They point out how little the most destructive attacks cost--an estimated $500,000 for Sept. 11, $70,000 for the 2004 Madrid train bombings, $10,000 for the 2005 London transit attacks. By forcing terrorists to resort to more subterfuge, they claim, the U.S. has lost opportunities to glean vital intelligence. "A lot of what has happened is overreach by the so-called financial warriors," says Ibrahim Warde, a professor of international business at Tufts University. "It is not the most productive way of using the money trail, and you achieve hollow victories."

That's not the view from the highest levels in Washington, where the Pentagon has taken a keen interest in the financial front on terror and is forming a new threat-finance strategy. The repeated pleas for money from al Qaeda leaders over the last year are seen as evidence the group is desperate for funding and that it has gotten more difficult for operatives to grease the right palms along the way. "It is not just about funding the attacks, they must pay the operatives and families of suicide bombers, bribe public officials, travel, purchase travel documents and provide training," says Stuart A. Levey, under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at Treasury. "They need money, and they are now under financial stress."

With al Qaeda's home office no longer able to subsidize operations, affiliates and cells have turned more frequently to crime. On what scale? No one knows. Still, law enforcement is taking the issue very seriously. In January the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan merged its narcotics and terrorism units. A few weeks earlier the Drug Enforcement Administration pulled off a sting operation in Ghana, snatching three men--Oumar Issa, Harouna Touré and Idriss Abdelrahman--and shipping them to New York City to face charges of narco-terror conspiracy and providing material support to al Qaeda.

According to the DEA the three men were connected to al Qaeda's most hardened criminal element, its North African affiliate. Known as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the group appears to be involved in the trafficking of Latin American cocaine through Africa to Spain. The indictment accuses the men of agreeing to transport a series of 1,000-kilogram loads of cocaine for $2,000 a kilogram--a portion of which was to be turned over to Islamic Maghreb in return for protection along the route. The court filings claim that Islamic Maghreb had worked with Touré to move two tons of hashish to Tunisia and also smuggled human beings--undocumented workers, it seems--from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India into Spain.

The criminal filings also indicate that al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb had recently nabbed Belgian citizens and collected a big ransom. Richard Barrett, who keeps an eye on al Qaeda for the U.N., says kidnapping has been the biggest moneymaker for Islamic Maghreb. "Hostage taking has proved lucrative for them," he says, adding the group is currently holding seven foreigners and ransomed others for $3 million each. "You can keep going for a long time down there with that kind of money."

While kidnapping is probably as old as warfare, its latest incarnation owes much to al Qaeda in Iraq, a now largely defanged affiliate. It made piles of cash grabbing foreigners a few years ago and supplemented that income with extortion rackets and black market oil sales. The group became so rich that its leader at one point got a letter from al Qaeda's number two, Zawahiri, requesting a substantial sum.

Within the al Qaeda network there is a sharp debate on just how far to push criminal ventures. Some members have advocated for more illicit sources of funds, including branching out into piracy. Others within the core of the group argue that criminal activity creates bad p.r. and erodes the brand within Muslim communities.

Officials across the U.S. government insist they have no proof that al Qaeda's leadership is involved in the drug trade. But Michael Braun, chief of operations at the DEA until 2008, says they are in denial. "There is more clear evidence showing al Qaeda's growing involvement in the Afghan heroin trade on the Pakistan side of the border--al Qaeda proper," says Braun, now a managing partner at Spectre Group International, a security firm in Alexandria, Va. "There are growing numbers of investigative leads headed in that direction."

Al Qaeda's association with big-time criminal groups is undeniable. Dawood Ibrahim is one of the world's most infamous gangsters, operating a 5,000-member criminal syndicate that engages in everything from narcotics to contract killing, working mostly in Pakistan, India and the United Arab Emirates. Ibrahim shares smuggling routes with al Qaeda, says the U.S. government, and has collaborated with both al Qaeda and its South Asian affiliate, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which pulled off the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, possibly with Ibrahim's help.

The $3.4 billion Afghan heroin trade is a critical source for the well-financed Taliban, which has also developed a rich donor network. The Taliban encourages and taxes poppy farmers and collects transit and protection fees related to the drug trade. How does al Qaeda benefit? At the very least the drug trade helps the Taliban create safe havens for al Qaeda fighters.

Some counterterror officials see an opportunity in the convergence of crime and terrorism. They point out that police in most countries are mobilized to tackle the drug trade, making it more likely that a terrorist who also runs narcotics will get caught by the cops. But the flip side is that crime, particularly the rich drug trade, could help sustain terror groups for years. Farc, a Marxist terror group in Colombia, has kept itself going for 46 years with the help of profits from cocaine and kidnapping. A report by James Fearon, a political science professor at Stanford University, studied 128 civil wars since 1945 and concluded that, on average, civil wars lasted 39 years longer when insurgent groups were financed by contraband like heroin or cocaine. Big bucks could spawn truly dire scenarios. "Criminal syndicates have the organizational and financial wherewithal that could potentially allow them to acquire and sell radioactive materials," David Johnson, head of the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs, warned in January.

Yemen is an epicenter of what is brewing. The affiliate there, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, claimed responsibility for the botched Christmas Day plane attack. Not particularly well financed, according to a U.S. official, the group is resorting to crime. Some al Qaeda members there reportedly tried their hand at bank robberies and considered going into the kidnapping business. For now its chief source of funds is cash contributions from donors in Yemen and the Arabian Gulf. Couriers are still able to move easily in much of the area--in one example last September agents carrying tens of thousands of dollars for al Qaeda were stopped in Kuwait, says the U.N.'s Barrett.

Yet, to the dismay of the U.S., Kuwait has done little to crack down on such donations, even resisting basic terror finance laws. In 2008 the U.S. highlighted the role the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, a prominent Kuwaiti charity, played in funding al Qaeda's network. The group has denied any terror ties and continues to operate. Couriers carry as much as $100,000 per trip between Afghanistan and the Gulf, the funds coming from legitimate commerce as well as from heroin trafficking. Hawalas also rely on couriers to settle up paper transactions with fellow money transmitters. It is easy for al Qaeda or Taliban donations to get mixed in. "The difficulty is trying to identify the part of that which is illicit," says Treasury's Cohen.

To say nothing of where the cash might turn up. According to a January federal indictment, in 2006 a Pakistani financier for Lashkar-e-Taiba handed David Headley of Chicago $25,000 to conduct video surveillance in India in preparation for the Mumbai attack. In 2007 Headley also met with his terrorist money man in Pakistan, who forked over another $2,000 in Indian currency, according to the indictment, which charges Headley and his contact, Ilyas Kashmiri, a terrorist linked to al Qaeda, with conspiracy to murder (173 people died in the attack).

Al Qaeda has reaped direct benefits from Lashkar's ability to raise and move funds. As recently as 2008 Fazeel-A-Tul Ameen al Peshawari, a Lashkar fundraiser and recruiter, was providing financial aid to al Qaeda, says the U.S. government. Arif Qasmani, a chief Lashkar coordinator who has raised funds from crime boss Ibrahim, has been providing al Qaeda with supplies and weapons. In return al Qaeda loaned to Lashkar operatives who helped carry out the 2006 train bombings in Mumbai. Raising funds was so easy for Lashkar that in 2004 its finance chief, Haji Ashraf, traveled to the Middle East to collect donations and manage financial networks in Saudi Arabia.

But Ashraf probably isn't collecting as many frequent-flier miles these days. The Saudi government finally cracked down on terrorist financiers after it became alarmed by homegrown insurgents and those arising next door in Iraq. In 2007 the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia urged citizens not to finance terrorism and to be mindful of how their charitable contributions were being distributed. A 130-man Saudi financial investigative unit has been set up, and 96 suspected terrorist financiers have been arrested. Getting Saudi officials on board is a big victory. But the kingdom's charities are another matter. "There continues to exist a pool of donors who are ready, willing and able to contribute to al Qaeda," says Treasury's Cohen. "We have at least temporarily disrupted some" of them.

forbes.com