MILF & GRP Served Notice

By Zachary Abuza

In a visit to Manila this week, Adm. William Fallon, head of the US Pacific Command, raised the issue of designating the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). The links between the MILF and Jemaah Islamiyah, a regional affiliate of Al Qaeda that is responsible for three major terrorist attacks in Indonesia since October 2002, are clear and convincing. MILF offered JI training facilities in its camps in the 1990s; and several hundred JI members were trained by Al Qaeda operatives including Omar al-Faruq, Omar Al-Hadrani and al-Mughira al-Gaza�iri. The number of Indonesians in MILF camps, however, has decreased dramatically in the past few years. The MILF denies the existence of training camps, but the revelations of captured JI members in the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia suggest that training continues and that the �classes� are roughly 20 people each. Moreover, there is evidence that Abu Sayyaf members are being trained in the same camps. These allegations were recently confirmed by Rohmat (Zaki), an Indonesian JI member captured as he was coming out of an MILF base command.

The links between the MILF and Jemaah Islamiyah, a regional affiliate of Al Qaeda that is responsible for three major terrorist attacks in Indonesia since October 2002, are clear and convincing. MILF offered JI training facilities in its camps in the 1990s; and several hundred JI members were trained by Al Qaeda operatives including Omar al-Faruq, Omar Al-Hadrani and al-Mughira al-Gaza�iri. The number of Indonesians in MILF camps, however, has decreased dramatically in the past few years. The MILF denies the existence of training camps, but the revelations of captured JI members in the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia suggest that training continues and that the �classes� are roughly 20 people each. Moreover, there is evidence that Abu Sayyaf members are being trained in the same camps. These allegations were recently confirmed by Rohmat (Zaki), an Indonesian JI member captured as he was coming out of an MILF base command.

What is of significant concern to American and regional intelligence officials is not simply that the training is continuing, but that a cadre of first-generation, Afghan-trained JI members is now based in Mindanao, including Dulmatin and Umar Patek, two of the Bali bombers. Increasingly Mindanao is seen not just as a rear base of operations, but as a potential center of operations.

The problem with designation is the MILF is a popular national-liberation organization, and their grievances are very legitimate. They have been engaged in on-again, off-again peace talks with the government since 1997. Most recently, the ceasefire was shattered when the government over-ran their headquarters in Buliok in February 2003. Formal peace talks have still not resumed, though they are now scheduled to begin on 16 April.

In the fall of 2003, the US Government offered the MILF some $50 million over two years in development assistance if they signed a peace agreement with the government. The US calculus was simple, as long as the civil war continued, the less incentive the MILF, without state patrons, had to cut ties to JI and Al Qaeda. And yet, peace talks remain stalled.

Admiral Fallon�s statement, which has caused defensive pleas from Philippine Government officials, as well as President Arroyo herself, reflects US frustration with both the MILF and the Philippine Government. Regarding the former, the intelligence is making it hard for anyone to believe the MILF�s denials. Regarding the latter, the Philippine government has shown little seriousness or vision regarding the peace process. President Arroyo has shown little leadership that is needed if she is to succeed in reaching a deal with the MILF that will stabilize Mindanao.

Falon�s warning is correctly designed to pressure both sides. The Philippine government doesn�t want the US to do it, because it will stall the peace process, and potentially lead to a resumption of war; something the Philippine government can ill-afford.

The MILF must be held responsible for doing the right thing � ending the ties between some of its leaders and the Abu Sayyaf and JI, and turning over those individuals who discredit both their religion and an otherwise legitimate political movement. Regrettably, it is unlikely they will cut these ties until the peace process resumes in earnest and the MILF has some confidence that government commitments and agreements will be honored, and that the Philippine military will not undercut or obstruct their implementation. Ties to JI are a rational choice, a hedge, for the MILF.

While they say they don�t care about the designation, the MILF should. Designation will deligitimize their movement. Moreover, the UN Security Council will likely follow suit, and the MILF has no friends on the Security Council. UN designation will hurt their dream of an East-Timor styled UN-sponsored referendum. Moreover, it will set back the peace process and give hardliners in the Philippine military the incentive to continue the war. Then we�ll really have a terrorism problem in Southeast Asia.

« Close It

Final Report on Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction

By Evan Kohlmann

http://www.wmd.gov/report
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, MARCH 31, 2005

DOWNLOAD ENTIRE REPORT IN PDF FORMAT (3.3 MB)

Mr. Volcker, Where's the Beef?

By Victor Comras

Like many, I waited for, and read the second Volcker Commission Interim Report with great anticipation. I have now slugged through both interim reports, and all I can say is �Where�s the Beef!� Taken together the two interim reports appear to make the little things sound big, while missing the big things altogether. Let me start with the latest report. There�s really not that much in its 90 pages (144 pages with its appendix). It tells us only that:

1. Cotecna really shouldn�t have been selected by the UN because it was under investigation in Switzerland and Pakistan for making illegal kickbacks. The IIC does not address how Cotecna performed under its UN Contract or whether it carried out its contract responsibilities. Did they assure that the OFF goods conformed, and did they protect against the use of OFF contracts to cover contraband? Who is going to answer that one for us.

2. Cotecna�s hiring and retention of Kojo raises the appearances of a �conflict of interest� How trite. There is no convincing evidence, the report says, that there was actually a conflict of interest. No matter. I can�t get excited about this finding either way. With all the other great problems and questions surrounding the OFF program and its consequences, I don�t believe this question deserved the time and effort the Volcker Commission gave to it, especially if it comes at the expense of their dealing with the tougher issues.

3. Even if Kofi Annan wasn�t involved, he should have been more aware of what was going on with his son, and ought to have directed closer scrutiny over the renewal of Cotecna�s contract. That�s almost funny. It seems to me that Kofi Annan should have been aware of what was going on with the whole OFF program and the way it was being sabotaged to enrich Saddam and those willing to work with him. If we are going to tag Kofi Annan, it should be on that issue, not the issue of whether or not he followed up on a story about his son in a �The Sunday Times.�

4. Much of the real story about Kojo�s role is still unknown. That's probably right. But, hopefully the IIC will now turn to the bigger issues.

While I�m at it, let me pick at the earlier interim report. It did have more substance. But, I am troubled by its focus and conclusions. That report informed us that:

1. �The investigative record � is replete with convincing and uncontested evidence that the selection process for each of the three United Nations contractors �{BNP, Saybolt and Lloyd�s Register}did not conform to established financial and competitive bidding rules.� This came as no surprise to anyone. Everyone associated with the establishment of the OFF program was aware that the selection process was governed by �political factors. � The selection of the contractors was the result of negotiations between the principal players. The real scandal here is that the Volcker Commission, the United Nations, and the countries involved have been willing to tag this all on Joseph Stephanides who was really one of the �good guys. � He tried to make the Iraq sanctions work. I�m still waiting to see if any of the government officials involved stand up to the plate on this one.

2. ��Mr.Sevan, while employed as Executive Director of OIP, solicited and received on behalf of AMEP{African Middle East Petroleum Co) several million barrels of allocation of oil from 1998 to 2001. This IIC finding is serious and it confirms the strong suspicions that predated the IIC that Sevan dabbled also in the much bigger and broader international multi-billion dollar scam run by Saddam Hussein and his cronies to assure that they were the greatest beneficiaries of the Oil for Food Program. The question now is whether the IIC will delve more deeply into the extent of this enormous international scandal or leave it only with Sevan. Volcker and his team should help us understand how the international community and the United Nations allowed this to happen. What explains the failure of the officials in the United Nations overseeing the program to blow their whistles loudly, and what explains the absolute failure of government officials in the United States, Europe, Russia and elsewhere from cracking down.

Let�s hope that the final Volcker Commission Report goes beyond the parochial issues they have dealt with so far. Its time to get to the broader questions and issues that get to the true heart of this scandal.

« Close It

New Videos from the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI)

By Evan Kohlmann

The Ansar al-Sunnah Army in Iraq has released a new full-length propaganda film titled "Purification of the Soul." Among other items of note, the video features extensive, previously-unseen footage of Ansar al-Sunnah insurgent training camps in Iraq, ambush attacks on civilian contractor vehicles entering Baghdad, and even the indoctrination and combat training of child recruits for the militant group. It is unknown if any of the training camps featured in the video included a facility near Samarra on the banks of Lake Tharthar reportedly raided last week by Iraqi forces. (Click to view video excerpts c/o Globalterroralert.com)

Separately, the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) has released video footage of several recent military operations in and around the Iraqi capital Baghdad--including a roadside bomb attack on a U.S. Humvee in Al-Latifiya, a rocket attack on the Al-Mansour Hotel, and a bombing ambush on U.S. soldiers in Taji. In the last attack, American troops were lured to a position in Taji with a decoy roadside bomb. As the arriving soldiers attempted to defuse the first device, a second, larger hidden explosive device was detonated, allegedly killing three of them.
- Mar. 23 video of IAI roadside bomb attack on U.S. Humvee
- Mar. 23 video of IAI rocket attack on Al-Mansour Hotel
- Mar. 29 video of IAI ambush bombing attack in Taji

Employment Visas Can Pose a Security Threat

By Bill West

On March 26, the Florida Sun-Sentinel ran an AP report about U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), the immigration benefits agency under DHS, exceeding the Congressionally mandated ceiling on H1-B "temporary skilled worker" visas. These visas, along with a similar temporary worker visa called the L-1, or "Intra-Company Transferee" visa which allows foreign workers of a foreign company to come to the US to temporarily work in a US-based subsidiary or branch of that company, have long been controversial and subject to fraud abuse. Hostile foreign Intelligence services and terrorist organizations have also used these visas as a mechanism to gain "legitimate" entry into the US for their sinister operatives.

One of the most significant and ongoing issues with the H and L visa programs is that so many of the recipients of these visas convert their "temporary" status to permanent resident alien status, often based upon the same employment skills that afforded them the temporary visa in the first place. In the "H" visa category, there is a parallel permanent resident visa category for skilled workers that is frequently pursued by employer and employee once the alien "H" is in the United States. For the "L" visa holder, once in the US, they often shop for a US employer who is willing to file the permanent resident skilled worker petition for them, using the same business and professional skills and contacts that landed them the "L" status once they are securely operating within the US. Thus, these so-called temporary work visas are very often anything but that.

Which is one reason the H and L visas are so attractive to those hostile foreign Intelligence services and terrorist organizations. Not only do they get their operatives into the US with solid immigration cover, the process can be easily manipulated to gain permanent resident status and ultimately naturalized US citizenship for those same operatives. The fraudulent utilization of legitimate US-based business entities with connections to foreign Intel services or terror groups makes the petition process for these visas exceptionally easy (there were at least two suspected bogus "H" visa capers linked to the ongoing Palestinian Islamic Jihad prosecution case in Tampa). Combine this with the fact that virtually all such petitions are remotely adjudicated by CIS, which means an Examining Officer sitting in some regional adjudication center reviews stacks of paper petitions and supporting documents hour after hour every day, and the opportunity for getting a bogus petition approved is very good. Essentially, if all the spaces in all the forms are filled out with information that looks convincing and the supporting documentation is reasonably good and nothing kicks out on the basic lookout queries, the petition will most likely sail through and the alien will get the visa.

CIS Director Eduardo Aguirre has publicly stated that one of the top priorities for CIS is to reduce application backlogs. That was also a constant problem with the old INS benefit processing system...simply because there were far too few resources to deal with far too many applications and petitions in a legal environment that was increasingly complex and forever changing. Those pressures have really not changed under CIS, especially considering that CIS is virtually all made up of former INS benefits division officials. The ability to root out potential fraud and other malafide applicants by the CIS is probably only slightly better than it was under the old INS, and the threat of such abuse of the benefit system is even greater.

The fact that CIS exceeded the Congressional mandate of H1-B visas by 10,000 should be a concern to all of us. That is 10,000 more opportunities for even one more terrorist alien or foreign spy to gain entry into the US and remain here with legitimate "cover" than need have happened if CIS officials had administered this program more effectively. Congress will hopefully conduct further inquiry into this matter.

« Close It

Oil for Food Update: UN Decides Not to Pay Benon Sevan's Legal Fees

By Victor Comras

The UN Secretary General's Press Spokesman, Fred Eckhard indicated yesterday afternoon that the UN had decided that "it is not appropriate to reimburse Benon Sevan�s legal bills for his appearances before the Volcker Commission (Independent Inquiry Committee)." They will review this decision if Sevan is later cleared of both internal breaches of UN rules and regulations and of any criminal wrongdoing. The decision was taken by Mark Mallock Brown in consultation with the UN Legal Department.

Sectarian Violence and Terrorism in Southeast Asia

By Zachary Abuza

Arrests in Ambon, Indonesia, an ominous warning in Mindanao, Philippines, and continued violence in Southern Thailand portend the future of militant Islam in Southeast Asia, and the revival of Jemaah Islamiyah.

Although Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) has been the most active and lethal of Al Qaeda's regional affiliates, perpetrating three major terrorist attacks in Indonesia since 2002: Bali (October 2002), the JW Marriott in Jakarta (August 2003) and the Australian Embassy (September 2004), JI is a weakened organization. JI has been significantly degraded in terms of its capability and manpower since October 2001. There have been more than 300 arrests, including most of its senior leaders and founding members. JI's leadership structure, its shura and regional (mantiqi) structure no longer seem to be in place. What is left is a looser organization, autonomous cells, with little if any centralized command and control. There is considerable bomb-making expertise and a cadre of Afghan trained leaders still at large.

JI has not thrown in the towel, and the path to its regrouping and expansion lies less in bombing western targets and more through provoking sectarian conflict. This is what JI and its leaders were consumed with in 1998-2000. Then they established two separate paramilitaries, the Laskar Mujiheddin and the Laskar Jundullah in the Malukus and Sulawesi, respectively. This was an important tool for JI in indoctrinating their members, giving them a sense of defending their religion and reinforcing their Manichean view of the world. In 2004, there were a number of bombings, attacks, and assassinations that must be seen as an attempt to break the uneasy truce that has held since the negotiation of the Malino Accords in 2002.

In the past few weeks, further evidence of this strategy have emerged in three seperate countries: Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.

Yesterday, Indonesian police raided safe houses used by Islamic militants in Ambon, seizing a cache of some 95 IEDs and ammunition. Clearly militant seek to spoil the peace, and provoke a heavy handed government response.

Likewise, in the southern Philippines, the revived ASG, together with JI members/trainers have been calling for a jihad against the Christians. While the MILF has shied away from engaging in sectarian conflict, in the course of their revolution, radical elements of the group have lost patience with the peace process and seem to be willing to ratchet up the violence. Detained JI members who trained in Mindanao confirm that sectarian violence is part of the MO of the groups. Interestingly, the MILF posted a warning about the spectre of sectarian violence on their website earlier this week.

Finally, the violence in southern Thailand continues unabated, with several attacks each day in the three Muslim-dominated provinces. Some 600 people were killed in 2004, and the lvel/rate of violence has escalated since the October Tak Bai incident in which over 80 suspected militants were killed by the Thai army. Ominously, a Thai Buddhist monk was targeted this week. There is some alarm that the conflict in Southern Thailand is spiraling out of control and that JI will try to take advantage of it, as they did in the Malukus and Sulawesi in 1998. While there is no evidence to support that JI is behind the violence in southern Thailand, there are some links between JI and one of the groups that has been one of the main perpetrators of the violence.

While there is a debate amongst JI-watchers as to whether the group is divided factionally between advocates of terrorism and proponents of sectarian violence, one must understand that they are not mutually exclusive, indeed they are mutually reinforcing.

« Close It

Introducing New Contributing Expert Zachary Abuza

By Andrew Cochran

We are pleased to welcome our newest Contributing Expert, Zachary Abuza. Dr. Abuza is currently a Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and Associate Professor of Political Science at Simmons College, Boston. Dr. Abuza specializes in Southeast Asian politics and security issues. He received his SoMALD and PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He is the author of Militant Islam in Southeast Asia (2003) and Renovating Politics in Contemporary Vietnam (2001). He has also authored two studies for the National Bureau of Asian Research, entitled "Funding Terrorism in Southeast Asia: The Financial Network of Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiya," NBR Analysis (2003) and "Muslims, Politics and Violence in Indonesia," NBR Analysis (2004). He is currently undertaking a major study of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front under support from USIP and the Smith Richardson Foundation. He is also working on two separate studies on the Abu Sayyaf Group and the insurgency in Southern Thailand. Dr. Abuza consults widely and is a frequent commentator in the press. He was recently quoted in South Asian press about links between Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf, and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

The Case Against Youssef Nada and Al Taqwa: Will Switzerland Now Prosecute?

By Victor Comras

There are growing signs that Switzerland will soon file formal criminal charges against Youssef Nada and his al Taqwa bank. Switzerland may also be prepared to follow up on a similar case against Saudi businessman Yasin Al-Qadi (see my earlier posting). These cases are likely to be a main topic of conversation when Swiss Justice Minister Christoph Blocher visits Washington this week The Swiss government has been working on the Nada case for over three years. Swiss and Italian police searched Nada�s Offices in Lugano and his home in Campione d�Italia shortly after he was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department and the UN Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee in November 2001. But, these local investigations failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prosecute. The Swiss then turned to the United States for further information.

The US Treasury Department wrote Swiss Deputy Federal prosecutor Claude Nicati in January 2002 laying out the reasons for Nada�s designation. The letter claimed that al-Taqwa and its founder, Youssef M. Nada, used concealed bank accounts, complex land deals and other hard-to-trace methods to channel funds to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It had also provided a clandestine line of credit to one of bin Baden�s lieutenants subsequently implicated in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings. Nicati came to the US in early 2002 to get the evidence backing up these claims. But, he left empty handed. The US agencies involved refused to provide the information which came from intelligence sources. The Swiss government complained at the time that without this information they could not proceed with the case against Nada or al Taqwa.

An agreement was finally reached last year when Attorney General Ashcroft visited Switzerland in June 2004 to exchange information on this and other terrorism related cases. Swiss Prosecutor Valentin Roschacher told the press at that time that an �Operative Working Arrangement� had been worked out to permit such information to be exchanged. But the accord has come in for heavy criticism in Switzerland, particularly since the government had not sought parliament's approval for it. Roschacher has assured his constituents that this arrangement would expire as soon as the terrorism investigations were completed.

Third Blast in Lebanon Serves Notice of Life without Syria

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C. Johnson

Another day and another bomb in Christian neighborhood. The Syrian intelligence service is sending a clear message to the fractious Lebanese that violence and uncertainty will be the rule if Syrian security forces are not in place throughout the country. Lebanon lacks an effective Army capable of taking control of the Hezbollah forces in place, who are protecting the Shia population. It is no coincidence that Syrian forces have withdrawn from key sites in Lebanon and the frequency of bombs against civilian targets, particularly in Christian neighborhoods is escalating. More to come.

Chaos in Iraq Fuels Worry among Persian Gulf Neighbors

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C. Johnson

Extended discussions during the last two months with political and security officials from Persian Gulf States reveals a growing nervousness about the failure of the United States to contain the insurgency in Iraq. Our friends worry that we are creating a situation akin to that produced by the Soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The Soviet invasion ignited a jihadist passion that spread thru the Islamic world. That passion fueled the group responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Today our friends in the Persian Gulf see the images of US soldiers entering Iraqi homes and the rising death toll among the Iraqi civilian population as providing new grist for the jihadist mill of hatred. They have told me they are seeing levels of unrest and militant activity that are scaring the hell out of them. The recent attacks in Qatar and Kuwait inflame their concern.

Despite happy talk from Washington about the amazing success of the January 30 elections, our friends are reading accounts reporting that there was a deliberate effort backed by the United States to steal the election. Moreover, they see very clearly that there is still no Government in place that reflects the results of the election. You cannot continu to call something a success while the insurgents continue their attacks. In fact the Iraqi insurgents have shifted their attacks from US military targets to hitting Iraqis sympathetic to the United States and its coalition partners.

Our friends in the Persian Gulf want to see effective security put in place in Iraq. But, as reported in today's Washington Post, US troops are spending more time in garrison and less time on patrol. With fewer patrols insurgents have an easier time of moving about the country to collect intelligence, to recruit new fighters, to provide training for fighters, and to expand logistic networks to support the insurgents. The key to defeating an insurgency is convincing the local population that the Government is more powerful and more effective than the insurgents. Don't take my word for it, just ask Lord Cornwallis about the smashing success of the British counter insurgency operation in the American Colonies 226 years ago.

Washington Times Gets it Wrong on the FARC

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C. Johnson

Washington Times correspondent, Jerry Seper, produced an alarmist and misleading piece in today's paper titled, "Colombia's FARC Spreads in Central America". The FARC is not spreading, but a U.S. born threat is.

The FARC remains on the defensive. They are too busy in Colombia battling against the persistent offensive unleashed by Alvaro Uribe's Government starting two years ago. While they continue to fight and have inflicted some serious casualties on Colombian Government forces in the last six months, the level of violence in Colombia, particularly international terrorist attacks, is down signifcantly compared to four years ago. Seper also suggests that Colombia's status as the primary source of cocaine is something new and unusual. Not so. Colombia has enjoyed that dubious distinction for several years.

So, who's the emerging U.S. based threat? So-called youth gangs, like Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS 13). MS 13 got its start in the barrios of Los Angeles, initially as a group protecting their sisters from marauding Mexican gangs. They also engaged in theft. But MS 13 is far from a youth gang. Some of the MS 13 leaders have spent more than 20 years in American prisons and are now well into their 40s. These gangs have returned to Central America with a vengeance and are challenging the power of local law enforcement in places like El Salvador and Honduras. As a result they are pushing aggressively into narcotics, money laundering and weapons trafficking. They have also been guilty of heinous mass murders. With ties into the United States and a willingness to do almost anything for a buck, these gangs represent a significant threat to American security. To make matters worse, they are taking advantage of the US focus on Islamic terrorism to expand their activities and solidify their base. Rather than worry about the FARC we ought to pay attention to this developing threat.

Washington Times article: Colombia's FARC spreads in Central America

By Michael Cutler

This article should make it crystal clear as to why we absolutely need to secure our border with Mexico.

We are currently supposed to be engaged in two domestic wars- "The War on Drugs" and the ever popular "War on Terrorism." According to this article, 90% of the cocaine and 47% of the heroin sold in the United States originates in, or passes through Colombia. The drug cartels in Colombia have a reputation for utter ruthlessness comparable to what the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001 demonstrated so graphically. In addition to this, we also have been seeing reports of MS-13, an extremely violent gang that originated in El Salvador, that has a rapidly growing presence in the United States that is possibly involved in smuggling terrorists into the United States.

Yet, the administration and politicians on both sides of the 'aisle' seemingly continue to do everything they can to dissolve the border between the United States and Mexico.

Once again, I have to ask the same question that has no apparent or immediate answer, "What will it take to get our 'leaders' to take the security of our borders and the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws seriously?"

If our nation fought World War II the way we are fighting these two "wars" I am certain that Old Glory would no longer be flying over our nation's Capitol!

The article can be found at "http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050325-110524-1743r.htm

The Washington Times

www.washingtontimes.com

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

Colombia's FARC spreads in Central America
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 26, 2005

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

Marxist guerrillas in Colombia have established cells in Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama in what U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement authorities say is an effort by the rebel organization to expand its arms- and drug-trafficking operations.
Honduran Security Minister Oscar Alvarez confirmed the presence of members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, in the three Central American countries last week, saying the organization was seeking to "infiltrate Central America to buy more weapons and destabilize the rule of law ...."
Mr. Alvarez told reporters in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, that arms traffickers in that country were trading automatic weapons, mostly AK-47 assault rifles, to the FARC in exchange for drugs, which were being sold to buyers in the United States. The weapons were identified as coming from Nicaragua, left over from that country's civil war in the 1980s.
Three Hondurans have been identified in the scheme, including one man who managed the operation from his Honduran prison cell, although Honduran authorities and U.S. officials have said that many more are involved.
U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement authorities yesterday said the FARC -- considered Latin America's oldest, largest, most capable and best-equipped insurgency -- has continued its high-profile terrorist attacks in Colombia and expanded its arms- and drug-trafficking operations into Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.
The authorities said the FARC engaged in a concerted campaign to destabilize municipal governments in Colombia by killing local officials and threatening to execute others, and that it had kidnapped hundreds of civilians to help finance subversion and put political pressure on the Colombian government -- tactics that now have been exported to Central America.
They added, however, that the Colombian government's recent successes in combating the FARC -- aided by the United States -- may also have forced the organization to seek refuge elsewhere.
Earlier this month, a high-ranking FARC leader, Nayibe Rojas Valderrama, also known as "Comandante Sonia," was extradited to the United States to face prosecution on drug charges. Rojas Valderrama's capture last year by Colombian special-forces commandos was viewed as a major step in that government's ongoing U.S.-led effort to attack the FARC.
The FARC, with as many as 12,000 armed combatants, has been named in connection with numerous bombings, murders, mortar attacks, narcotrafficking, kidnappings, extortion and hijackings, as well as guerrilla and conventional military actions against Colombian political, military and economic targets.
Earlier this month, Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that many nations in Latin America and specifically the Andean Ridge were threatened by regional terrorist organizations supported and funded by illegal drug trafficking and other criminal ventures, including the FARC.
Gen. Craddock said 90 percent of the cocaine and 47 percent of the heroin that reaches the United States annually originates in or passes through Colombia.

« Close It

More Attention to Terrorists at Sea

By Andrew Cochran

Much more attention is being given in the press now to the possibility of terrorists using or pirating ships for either smuggling and transportation, or as actual attack vehicles. Newsweek has an article about it in this week's edition. James Dunnigan has one of his tidbits on the capture of 14 small ships in the Persian Gulf this year by American and British warships. The website that I've found thus far that pays continuous attention to the subject is EagleSpeak, so I've added it to the "Centers and Websites" box (apologies to ES for not doing it weeks ago). I would welcome all e-mails on the subject, especially from naval intel types.

Introducing New Contributing Expert Michael Chandler

By Andrew Cochran

We are very pleased to welcome our first European-based Contributing Expert, Michael Chandler. Mr. Chandler was the Chairman of the U.N.'s Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Monitoring Group, where he worked with Victor Comras, until early 2004, and he was the co-author of seven reports to the UN Security Council, issued from June 2001 to December 2003. Prior to that, he was as a career officer in the British Army, in which he held command and staff appointments in numerous countries, and then held senior management positions in the oil and high-tech industries. He joined the U.N. in 1993 and was a senior official involved in the the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the Bosnia-Herzegovina area, where he established and oversaw the operation of the joint civilian/military logistics organisation throughout the mission area. From Janury 1999 until late 2000, he directed the establishment of the new �State Border Service� for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country�s first substantive multi-ethnic and cross-entity institution with a single commander.

In February 2004 Mr. Chandler was awarded the Risks Management Solutions (RMS) Visiting Fellowship for Terrorism Research at Singapore�s Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. He is called upon regularly to give presentations and participate in panel discussions at international gatherings and to speak on television and radio on matters relating to countering terrorism and the al-Qaeda network. He was a member of the 2004 Club de Madrid Summit Working Group on Terrorist Financing and is a consultant on a variety of matters relating to countering trans-national terrorism, including command and control and effective inter-agency cooperation. He is a member of the Advisory Council of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore and the Advisory Board of the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism, Herzliya, Israel.

Michael Cutler on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight"

By Andrew Cochran

Contributing Expert Michael Cutler will appear tonight on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," which airs from 6 to 7 p.m. Eastern time, to discuss the summit between President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and the issue of our porous borders.

Annan Proposes International Definition of Terrorism

By Matthew Levitt

An indispensable part of UN secretary-general Kofi Annan�s recent report �In Larger Freedom,� which outlines much needed recommendations for the structure of the United Nations, was the call for an international definition of terrorism that encompasses all attacks on civilians. The report proposed the adoption of a new international convention on terrorism by September 2006 that would define terrorism as any act �intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.� This recommendation echoes his �High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and, Change� report on security threats, released in early December 2004.

It may be difficult to convince Arab states to accept such a definition, though. A recent report released by the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan found that Westerners and Arabs have different ideas about what constitutes terrorism. The report concluded that while Westerners draw the line at the nature of the act itself, a majority of Arabs make exceptions when considering the motivations behind the act. Thus, they consider various actions perpetrated by the United States and Israel as terrorism, and actions perpetrated against them as legitimate resistance.

For more on the debate over defining terrorism, see Andrew Eastman's policywatch on "Defining Terrorism."

Update on Sevan's Legal Fees: The Makings of Another UN Imbroglio!

By Victor Comras

The UN was caught short on its explanation yesterday concerning its agreement to pay Benon Sevan's legal fees. Their initial written statement implied that the Volcker Commission had condoned the payment in order to facilitate Sevan's appearance. That riled members of the Commission (IIC) and today, IIC spokesman Michael Holtzman responded, making it clear that it had had nothing to do with that UN decision. For its part the IIC had permitted Sevan to appear with the attorney because he was the "single individual against whom the most serious and direct allegations of corruption had been made, as of that time."

UN Chief of Staff Mark Malloch Brown admitted at the UN Press Briefing Today that "we boobed, we got it wrong." He went on to explain that the Secretary General and the previous Chief of Staff had agreed to pay Mr. Sevan legal fees after Sevan threatened to simply leave and go back to Cyprus. According to Brown, Sevan made it clear that if he could not avail himself of legal counsel, he was going home. "The reason this decision was made," Brown said, " was that {Sevan} was at the centre of this web that the Panel was seeking to unravel; that his role came about because of his official responsibilities as head of the oil-for-food programme, and that, therefore, any transgressions that had occurred were related to his official duties. We just felt that the range of questions he was being expected to answer and the range of subjects he needed to respond to was just too great for him to be able to organize himself and to present himself on those issues properly before the Panel without legal advice."

Much skepticism still reigns concerning the UN decision, which it apparently intends to stand by, to pay part or all of Sevan's legal fees from the Iraq Oil for Food 2.2 Account. And questions began to surface whether the Secretary General, or any other UN party might want re-embursement for legal fees. Brown admitted that the Secretary General had, in fact, sought the advice of private counsel regarding his Volcker Commission appearances, but that he had no intention of having the attorney appear with him or to seek any reimbursement for his legal consultations.

I have attached below further excerpts of today's UN Press Briefing on this issue.

EXCERPTS FROM THE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE SECRETARY GENERAL, WEDNESDAY MARCH 23,

Quote

Mark Malloch Brown On the second issue you raised, of the Volcker statement today correcting our statement of yesterday: we boobed, we got it wrong. I would say, though, that I was a little surprised, actually, that all of you relied only on the statement, given the fact that we released at the same time a letter signed by me to Benon Sevan, explaining the terms and circumstances under which we would pay for a portion of his legal fees. I say that because there is no effort at buck-passing here, there is no effort to dump this all on Riza, as this morning�s Sun seems to suggest. The letter has my signature on it. It makes very clear, in the first line, that this was a decision of both the Secretary-General and the previous Chief of Staff. While I think that our statement, which was written extremely hurriedly to try to respond to all of you as quickly as possible, was inaccurate in that it misrepresented the position of the Panel through a poor syntax and juxtaposition of sentences. The attached letter from me, which was indeed the basis of the statement, made no such mistake.

Question: I am glad that you acknowledge that yesterday�s statement is inaccurate, and that is putting it lightly. It said that Mr. Sevan was a retired official and that is incorrect, isn�t it. He got a $1 a year salary. He is not a retired official, he is on salary, isn�t that correct?

Mark Malloch Brown: He is a retired official who was kept on a salary of $1 a year to make him available to the panel.

Question: The rationale was that you don�t have any sanction or control over him because he is retired and that is why you have to pay his legal fees.

Mark Malloch Brown: Mr. Sevan made it clear that, if he could not avail himself of legal counsel, he was going home to Cyprus. He did not see why he should subject himself to this continuous indignity of leaks in the media, of trial by whatever, without even the basic legal needs available to him to clear his name. Let me elaborate further. The reason this decision was made, was that he was at the centre of this web that the Panel was seeking to unravel; that his role came about because of his official responsibilities as head of the oil-for-food programme, and that, therefore, any transgressions that had occurred were related to his official duties. We just felt that the range of questions he was being expected to answer and the range of subjects he needed to respond to was just too great for him to be able to organize himself and to present himself on those issues properly before the Panel without legal advice.

While you are right that yesterday�s statement was inaccurate in the way that it appeared to suggest that the Panel was endorsing the payment of those fees, which they did not endorse -� that was our decision �- they did agree that he should be represented by counsel because of the complexity of issues that he had to address. That is confirmed by the statement this morning and that is the point we are trying to make regarding the Panel.

Question: Why is it that the Volcker feels it has to pay a UN official in order to cooperate with an inquiry? Why is it that, given that he did not cooperate with the inquiry -� he said he had lied on a number of points in the inquiry -� that the UN still was even considering his request for reimbursement of legal fees?

Mark Malloch Brown: The key point there is, considering I am dealing with a situation where a commitment had been given last year, based on legal advice, and where my predecessor and the Secretary-General had both confirmed to Mr. Sevan that, until proven guilty, he could be helped with his first presentation to the Panel. The fact is, you are correct. The Panel concluded that he had not fully cooperated with them. It is also the case that our offer was limited to his representation before the Panel. Those two issues -- and therefore not other legal matters such as, for example, advice on other legal proceedings he might later face -� are exactly why he is not currently being paid. I want to be clear: you asked, we disclosed. There has been no effort to cover this up.

Question: I find it impossible to believe that the chief UN legal officer would recommend that this decision be taken in the best interest of the Organization. I believe that the case is that the Secretary-General, the Chief of Staff, or whoever, took the decision that they wanted to pay the legal fees and asked the legal officer how that could be done. I would like you to release the legal advice to make it clear that it was actually the Secretary-General who took the decision, rather than the chief legal officer.

Mark Malloch Brown: You would like me to release the legal advice to prove that there was no legal advice, you seem to be saying. It was just not a matter of policy in any organization that I know of, any government, any company, any client-lawyer situation, where you release the legal advice given to somebody. It is a client-attorney privilege, if you like. I am sure that the Office of Legal Affairs would be happy to confirm to you that it was indeed their advice that these fees be paid at that period.

Frankly, I think it is a great pity that the Organization did not heave itself into action to do it when it said it would. What had complicated the whole thing was the fact that, while the commitment was given to Mr. Sevan, it was not acted on, which is something that happens a lot to much around here. The issue became much complicated by the fact that it had not been acted on at the point of the release of the report, which materially changes the situation. Because now we know that, indeed, he had not fully cooperated and is accused of major breaches of the Staff Rules. That is why this thing is stuck at the moment as we review it.

....

On your second point -- that really is a matter for the lawyers. I want you to understand that this is being dealt with as a legal issue, not a political issue; the terms and circumstances under which either payments to Mr. Sevan or reclaiming payments from him is possible. In the case of reclaiming, I think that the practical fact is it would need some criminal conviction, which then allowed funds to be reclaimed through a civil court proceeding of our own. Reclaiming is different from paying, which is the state we are currently in.

Question: Would you rather have a vindication by an outside judicial party, not by the United Nation�s internal...

mark Malloch Brown: It is ultimately a matter of the lawyers, but I am pointing out that, as a practical matter of fact, it would need some kind of civil action, which, in turn, would be likely to be hinged on some previous criminal action. It might be possible to hinge it on an Administrative Tribunal finding. Again, the lawyers would have to determine that.

Question: How was the decision made to effectively use Iraqi oil money to pay for the defence of somebody accused of stealing money from the people of Iraq?

Mark Malloch Brown: The �2.2 account� that would be charged for any payments finally made was set up for the management of that oil money by the UN. As you know, it was used in an exchange which was endorsed by the Security Council over the objections of the Iraqi Permanent Representative for the payment of the Volcker Panel and its costs. We look at proper representation before that Panel to secure the truth from Benon Sevan as an extension of that same process. It is ensuring that the great bulk of those oil moneys were properly used, and that corrective action is taken where they were not. That was the purpose of the �2.2 account�, to ensure good management of the other
98 per cent of the oil revenues.

Question: This is where the real outrage is being expressed by the Iraqis themselves. It is like if an employee steals from funds from a bank, it is like asking the depositors whose funds are stolen to pay for his legal fees. Does it not seem to be at least a political misjudgement to use that particular money?

Mark Malloch Brown: If you take that example, it might be very likely that that employee of the bank was a senior manager of the bank and was sued as result of a criminal investigation of having stolen from accounts of people at that bank. It would be normal corporate practice that, initially, the bank would indeed underwrite a senior executive�s legal costs. As soon as the executive was found guilty in any proceeding, that financial support would stop. Check with normal legal practice here in the United States, and you�ll find that that is the case, whether it is Enron or any of the other scandals. These kinds of legal support are initially available, but as soon as there is proof of wrongdoing by the senior manager, any legal support of the company is withdrawn. It is there in the first stages, again, because as an officer of the company, that individual is being charged because of activities they have undertaken in the course of their official duties.

Question: The bank would not pay those fees if the funds of the...

Mark Malloch Brown: Well, they would pay it out of their resources. Let me make it clear that the money of the �2.2 account� is moneys given to the UN for the management of the other 98 per cent.

....

Question: We were given the impression that, when the investigation began and the dollar-retainer was organized, that would be a mechanism by which Sevan would have a direct conversation with Volcker. Now we have learned about a lawyer. Of course, that creates a kind a scepticism in the press corps and around the world. Even with these confusions, we still have not been able to put to sleep those feelings of scepticism that by having a lawyer you never are going to get to the bottom of the truth here. Can you please address that and try to put that to sleep. Secondly, can you explain what the relationship is between Mr. Sevan�s current lawyer and the UN is, if there is such a link. Thirdly, does the Secretary-General have a similar type of legal arrangement now that he is also under investigation?

Mark Malloch Brown: On the first two, let me just say that the idea of an accused being represented by counsel in an investigative procedure is as old as the notion of justice itself. While it is to ensure the accused their rights to defend themselves, which becomes enormously important in complex commercial investigations or legal proceedings, it has a second element too. The lawyer�s job in a situation like this is to ensure that the proceeding moves smoothly, to the extent that, if Mr. Sevan has answers to the questions the Volcker Panel raises, those answers are organized and documented. That there is not an individual on the defensive reluctantly answering and not being able to make his case effectively. That is the essence of any system of justice.

secondly, as regards the Secretary-General -� I am glad you asked -- the Secretary-General has indeed sought private legal advice in making his own response to the queries that the Volcker Panel had put to him. He has not sought, and he will not seek, any financial support from the UN in regard to that. It is entirely a private matter between him and a lawyer he has consulted on these matters. Nobody else is paying for it.

Question: Are you sure the Secretary-General will cooperate with Volcker? Also, you have used several times the term �found guilty�. To my knowledge, Benon Sevan has been found guilty of nothing, as of yet. Secondly, if it was important to ensure his cooperation so much that you needed to reimburse his lawyer fees, you need to address that, too. Was that only lawyer fees or also travel costs or other things? Has Benon Sevan since the 3 February findings appeared before the Volcker Commission. If the Volcker Commission asks him to reappear, do you assume that now he will not cooperate? Thirdly, since he was not found guilty of anything, why stop payments?

Mark Malloch Brown: Let me take the third first. We have always said that the Volcker Panel, while independent, if it makes allegations against people, we consider those to have the full force of the UN�s own investigation. Therefore, they have alleged serious misconduct against Mr. Sevan and I, as now Chief of Staff, feel a clear fiduciary responsibility to stop any payment for any legal services after those findings.

Mr. Sevan is now engaged in his right of rebuttal, because we took action against him, sent a letter of charges based on the Volcker findings. Obviously, if he is able to rebut all the allegations against him, and that rebuttal is accepted by the internal justice system of the UN, and no criminal charges came �- despite all we have heard out of Congress and out of different District Attorney�s Offices �- and he was completely vindicated by the justice system, then the situation is very different. At the moment, we consider him, because of the Volcker investigation, to be the subject of very serious charges. It would be utterly inappropriate, in my view, to allow further payments for work after 3 February.

As to your question on the Secretary-General, while it is a mischievous question, let me give it a straightforward answer. There is total and utter cooperation by the Secretary-General with the Volcker Panel. He has met with them, as you know, on several occasions, he has responded fully to any questions they had, he has made sure that the staff of his office, like the staff of the whole UN, have been equally forthcoming. The proof in that would be in what Mr. Volcker has to say next week.

Question: As for the other expenses...

Mark Malloch Brown: These legal bills are subject of discussion between the Office of Legal Affairs and Mr. Sevan�s lawyer. It is not money going to Mr. Sevan. As I understand it, it is reimbursement of the lawyer for a yet-to-be-agreed-upon scope of services because of the disputes we raised earlier. I am sure that if there are non-billable hours and expenses, that they are going to be subject to the same scrutiny. I have not seen the bills, but we are very clear that the terms are for his representation and his preparation for his representation before the International Inquiry Commission. That was what would be paid subject to the other issues we have discussed.

I can�t confirm the numbers, but I will acknowledge that it was a big number, because it was very difficult for a staff member alone to meet those legal bills on that scale because of the extensive questioning and scope of investigation to which he was subjected. That was one of the reasons that made the Office of Legal Affairs deem it an exceptional circumstance. It is beyond the few thousand dollars that a staff member might incur in other legal proceedings. It is exceptional for that reason, that it was beyond the means of a staff member -� unless that staff member enriched himself �- to meet. Secondly, it is exceptional because the Volcker Panel is exceptional. There has been no justice device of that kind before.

Spokesman: Marc Carnegie, did you have a question?

Question: Given the lawyers, the extent legal advice was involved in consultations with lawyers, why, can you tell us, was assurance given to Mr. Sevan only orally that you would pay the fees, or was there in fact some kind of document? And secondly, you just spoke about clear fiduciary responsibility to stop payment immediately. If that was the case, why did it take three weeks to send Mr. Sevan a letter to that effect? And thirdly, you�ve spoken now of him being accused of major breaches. As I recall, I don�t know the language exactly, but the day after the report came out you [inaudible] here saying that the Secretary-General was shocked and did not see any way that Mr. Sevan could be vindicated, or that his behaviour could be improved. Now you seem to be taking a step back, you�re saying, he�s only accused of major breaches and [inaudible] if he�s vindicated, we might pay. Has there been any shift on your part in how you feel about Mr. Sevan�s [inaudible]?

Mark Malloch Brown: No, Benny was taking the unusual role of being the champion of Mr. Sevan�s rights. So I was acknowledging that, of course, somebody is ultimately innocent until proven guilty, but we believe that the Volcker Panel has shifted the burden of proof to Mr. Sevan. It makes very serious allegations, which we at this point believe. And let me be very, very clear about that. As to why this letter took three weeks -- the issue, you know this a very controversial and difficult issue where my own instinct was to just give a one word reply to the whole issue -- �Nyet, No� -- in any language you like, because I was so concerned about the issues raised by it. But finally came to conclude, based on the advice I was given, that the prior commitments required us to honour them up to the period of 3 February.

But the point is, action on payment anyway had to be taken in terms of bills being cleared and paid. And there was no question of that happening. So this was a matter of serious, urgent, high-level review, and the choices that I faced and my predecessor before me faced were not palatable choices.

Question: Why were we told for the longest time that this arrangement didn�t exist?

Mark Malloch Brown: Because I believe, and you, Benny, seem to suggest in your question yesterday to Fred that you had asked this of him sometime last year. And I imagine at the time you asked him, it was not true.

Correspondent: I asked him last week, as well. It took five days to prepare a hurried statement.

Mark Malloch Brown: Well let me tell you, within hours -- no, Benny -- you came and asked him for it yesterday.

Correspondent: I came and asked him last week.

Mark Malloch Brown: The day that Fred raised this with me I gave the statement to Fred that he used with you the day before yesterday or whenever this was. You -- and I checked with him -- that you had only come to see him the day before yesterday �- Monday, I suppose. You had not come to see him at the end of last week. It was there waiting for you. There has been on my watch full disclosure of this. The moment you asked, you got the answer.

Correspondent: But then you say that three days later your response was hurried.

Mark Malloch Brown: No, we�re talking about the first response that led you to filing a story on Monday. That would have been available to you at the end of the previous week. It was sitting with Fred, and you did not come and ask for it. You had other more important leads to follow, no doubt, at that time.

Spokesman: Mark, you had -- Louie, don�t jump in. We have a long list here. You�ve got to wait your turn. Mark, did you get all your questions answered?

Question: Can you shed any light on why the decision was made to only give oral assurance that his legal fees would be paid. And secondly, please correct me if I�m wrong, but you said it�s a very old idea that those who are accused should be represented by counsel, and you raised a parallel with the private sector when people in companies are charged with what not they should have counsel. But those cases, unless I�m misunderstanding, those cases have to do with employees in companies that are accused of violating of outside federal law or sometimes State law. In this case, are we not talking about an official who is also basically on the dock for breaking United Nations rules and you pay his legal fees when he�s being investigated for breaking United Nations rules? And in fact now that you say [inaudible] shifted the burden of proof and you at this point believe that he may be guilty of these things, then at the moment when he is actually facing the outside possibility of being charged with United States law or some kind of outside law, you cut off the legal support.

Mark Malloch Brown: I mean, look, I don�t think the issue is material about an internal versus external justice system �- justice. The point is that this man was clearly at the centre of the Volcker investigations. He was being asked to respond over a wide web of commercial actions and a long period of time when he was being cross-examined for events and actions taken over whatever it was -� a three- or four-year period. And a decision was made that he was not going to be able do this effectively without legal counsel and that the scale of the legal support he would need was beyond his means as a United Nations staff member to finance alone. And we�re getting a little repetitive here. I am only going to be able to take one or two more, because I�m very, very late for a meeting at the moment.

....

Marc Malloch Brown: Well, let us be very clear. Benon has been subject to the interim findings of a $30 million 65-investigator investigation, which says, in its view, he is guilty. Not necessarily of criminal wrongdoing, but guilty of major breaches of the staff rules. If an investigation commission by us says that, well, until he is able to prove otherwise... As I made clear, the day the Volcker report came out, we now... our presumption is that this investigation, which the Secretary-General commissioned, is right. The burden is on Mr. Sevan to prove otherwise, and he has an internal justice process to allow him to do that. And we are giving him every opportunity to avail himself of that.

End Quote
END EXCERPT

« Close It

Iraqi Raid on Insurgent Training Camp Leads to Capture of Suspected Algerian Terrorist

By Evan Kohlmann

This from the Iraqi Government Communications Directorate:

"[Ministry of Interior] Special Police Commandos Killed 85 Terrorists, Arrested one Algerian."
"The MOI's Special Police Commandos conducted a successful raid on a terrorist training camp in Samarra which killed 85 terrorists and led to the successful capture of one Algerian. Commandos were acting on information they had received about a terrorist training camp near Samarra. The Commandos netted explosives, vehicles, various computers, documents, and heavy weaponry. The terrorists had planned on attacking Samarra by using a large number of VBIEDs [car bombs] that were found at the facility."

Click to view photos of suspected terror training camps in Iraq c/o Globalterroralert.com

GSPC Commander in Algeria Hails Al-Qaida in New Video

By Evan Kohlmann

In a new video released by the Algerian Salafist Group for Prayer and Combat (GSPC)--a known Al-Qaida affiliate group active in North Africa--GSPC commander Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud has sworn that Allah will "destroy America" and further sent greetings to "the leaders of jihad, who are the true leaders after their own leaders became apostates. They are the source of light in our dark exile and the hope for the wounded nation of Islam. To the fighting Shaykh Abu Abdullah Usama Bin Laden, Mullah Mohammed Omar, Shaykh Ayman al-Zawahiri, to the beloved hero and the leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to the patient brothers and brave lions in Chechnya � Abu Hafs [al-Urdani] and [Abu Omar] al-Saif, to the brave fighters in Palestine and to the mujahideen everywhere � may Allah protect you all."

Click to view video excerpt c/o Globalterroralert.com

Is the UN Really Paying Benon Sevan's Legal Fees?

By Victor Comras

Today's Press Briefing at the United Nations was out of the ordinary. These briefings are usually staid affairs and fireworks are quite rare. But today's dialogue between the press and UN Spokesman Fred Eckhard had considerable tension and drama. The press wanted to know whether the UN was really going to pay some $300,000 in legal fees on behalf of Benon Sevan. The story first surfaced this morning in the New York Sun. I have attached below the excerpt from the transcript of today's UN Press Briefing for your reading. I'm sure you will be as much surprised as I was with some of Fred Eckhard answers.

EXCERPT FROM DAILY PRESS BRIEFING BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE SECRETARY GENERAL, TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005

QUOTE:

Question: The other question was a follow-up to a story in the New York Sun today. The United Nations has been paying Benon Sevan�s legal fees. Is this appropriate? Is this normal practice? And why did the United Nations not announce this?

Spokesman: Indeed -- well, first of all, we haven�t paid for anything yet. But it is true that the Secretary-General decided, in principle, to reimburse Mr. Sevan for what we called �reasonable legal fees� as determined by the United Nations for services in connection with his appearance before the Volcker Commission. The payment of these fees was to be made on a strictly exceptional basis, for the purposes of facilitating the work of the Commission. Mr. Sevan has submitted some bills to us. We are reviewing them now. And as I said, nothing yet has been paid.

Exceptional -� it is exceptional. The oil-for-food programme was an exceptional programme. The Volcker Commission is an exceptional commission. And Benon Sevan was in a unique position as the head of that programme.

I�m not aware that in the past we�ve ever reimbursed staff for legal fees. I don�t believe that any other �- well there�s only one other Secretariat member charged by the Volcker Commission, Joseph Stephanides, and we have not agreed to reimburse him. So it�s Benon Sevan as the head of the Programme on an exceptional basis.

Question: And is this definitely going to go ahead? You sort of mentioned in theory. Will this decision be reviewed, or is it an agreement? I�m sorry, and whose advice was this on?

Spokesman: The Secretary-General took this advice, this decision on the advice of his legal department, the Office of Legal Affairs. And it was taken before the Volcker report came out that laid specific charges against Mr. Sevan. So I can�t say at this time whether the decision is being reviewed for the period prior to that Volcker report, but it is not our intention to reimburse Mr. Sevan for any fees since the Volcker report laid charges against him.

Question: Fred, I don�t quite understand where the justification to pay for Mr. Sevan�s legal fees comes from exactly. Maybe you could explain that again so that I can understand that. Where does this money come from? What budget within the United Nations is paying for this, and also, I was just wondering, the Secretary-General also is being looked at by the Volcker Commission. Does this mean that he also has legal fees being paid by the United Nations?

Spokesman: I don�t know the answers to those questions. I�d have to go back to the Office of Legal Affairs and ask what the basis for this is. I understand in the private sector, it�s commonly done. But I don�t know whether that was a factor in the Office of Legal Affairs� advice to the Secretary-General; so, let me look into that for you.

Question: Can you tell us how much the total legal fees that Sevan is being asked to be reimbursed?

Spokesman: I cannot; as I said, the bills he gave us are now being reviewed by us, and I don�t think we have a total.

....

Question: Did Mr. Sevan call the Secretary-General about the fees? Who initiated the conversation about paying the legal fees?

Spokesman: I don�t know. I have to assume it was Mr. Sevan who asked for the reimbursement.

Question: Fred, I�m sure that the Iraqi Government will be concerned that more of the Iraqi oil-for-food money will be used in this case. Can you assure us that Iraqi oil-for-food money will not be used to pay Mr. Sevan�s legal fees?

Spokesman: As I just said, I don�t know where this money was to come from, if it were to be paid. So, let me try to find out and get back to you.

Question: I still don�t understand why you would pay Mr. Sevan�s legal fees and not Mr. Stephanides� legal fees. The fact that he was the head of the programme, what difference would that make? And, for example, are you also planning to pay Ruud Lubbers� legal fees for his defence against sexual molestation charges. Are you planning to pay for that French guy�s legal fees [inaudible]?

Spokesman: Excuse me, Mark. I said it was on an exceptional basis -- excuse me �- I said the decision was taken before the Volcker Commission laid specific charges against Mr. Sevan. So, let me find out the answers to the rest of your questions as best I can.

Question: Fred, given that the United Nations is pushing United Nations reform, is it timely for the Secretary-General to be wasting United Nations money on defending United Nations officials that are charged with ethical lapses and conflicts of interest? Is that not a waste of United Nations money at a time when the United Nations is pushing reform?

Spokesman: You�ve asked me about the rationale for the decision and I said I would try to find out what the legal advice of the Office of Legal Affairs to the Secretary-General was, why they advised him to do this. Yes?

Question: Can we specifically request that Kofi Annan, because it�s an exceptional decision with no precedent, publish the legal advice so that we can all see what the basis of this exceptional decision is? That�s one part of my question. The second part of my question is, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former United Nations Secretary-General, has been involved and interviewed in the investigation. Is there any similar consideration of paying any legal costs that Boutros Boutros-Ghali might incur?

Spokesman: No, I think when I said it�s exceptional, it�s exactly that. So, it starts and stops with Benon Sevan, and I will relay your first request to the people I answer to.

Question: Is there a [inaudible] reviewing those fees? Is the Secretariat considering not paying any of the fees that Mr. Sevan submitted paperwork for, prior to the Volcker report?

Spokesman: I can�t say that -� I cannot say that at this time.

Question: Might there be a decision to review -� is the Secretary-General considering whether to revoke that exceptional...?

Spokesman: I cannot answer that question. I don�t have a basis to answer that question.

Question: Well, the Sun article, it seems like there was the impression at least given, or maybe the straight answer given, that the United Nations wasn�t considering paying for Mr. Sevan�s fees, and now we�ve learned that they are considering. Can you explain why there is that difference? Where did the decision come from to drop paying the fees once Benon Sevan was cited in the Volcker report?

Spokesman: All of these decisions, or these two decisions, first to, in principle, to reimburse Mr. Sevan for his legal fees, using the language that I used initially, and the decision to no longer do so once charges were raised against him were both taken by the Secretary-General. And your other question was what?

Question: The other question was just trying to understand -- initially you denied, at least that�s the sense we got from the Sun article, that you denied that there was some sort of arrangement being made, but now we�re learning that there is some kind...

Spokesman: I don�t think we ever dealt with this question. I don�t think it ever came up in a briefing.

Question: Fred, seems [inaudible] this sum of $300,000 [inaudible]...correct?

Spokesman: That�s not a figure that I can confirm. They haven�t told me.

Question: Can you tell us how many United Nations staff employees that figure of $300,000 would pay for in a year as employment?

Spokesman: Well, first of all, I can�t confirm the $300,000 figure is correct.

Question: I�m just saying how many United Nations employees?

Spokesman: It�s still a hypothetical question.

Question: $300,000 �- how many United Nations staff members does that pay for in a year? One, two, three?

Spokesman: The pay scale at the United Nations goes from the lowest General Service member to the most senior Professional...

Question: It could be several, couldn�t it?

Spokesman: I�m not going to speculate, James. Richard?

Question: The decision was taken by the Secretary-General. Do you believe it would be fair criticism that it raises still questions about the Secretary-General�s judgement regarding conflict of interest, the perception of the image of the place, this story coming out one day after his big reform effort, can totally undercut the efforts made in that direction? He wanted an internal probe first on oil-for-food. The same legal office said on Ruud Lubbers that there wasn�t enough to go against him. Can you address the perception issue?

Spokesman: I think until we get from upstairs the rationale of the Office of Legal Affairs for advising the Secretary-General to do this, there�s no sense discussing perceptions.

Question: Fred, why do we not have that rationale today? I mean, this is the day the piece appeared in the newspaper. Why is it that you, as the United Nations Spokesman, haven�t brought us that rationale, are not able to explain the exceptional basis today?

Spokesman: Well, it appeared in the paper a few hours ago. That�s when we became aware of it. The Secretary-General himself is in Algiers, and I just didn�t get full guidance by 12.

Question: Can we also request �- if you are unable to publish the legal advice -- that we get the Under-Secretary-General down here to explain to us in his words why that decision was taken.

Spokesman: I will relay that request.

....

Question: Regarding Benon Sevan, we were talking of perception. It could be a perception that Kofi Annan is paying his legal fees as hush money to Benon Sevan, who was in an exceptional position as head of the programme. Can you explain to us why that perception might be incorrect?

Spokesman: I think you would have to explain why you would have that perception yourself.

Question: I am glad to explain it. Benon Sevan was in charge of the programme, and he knows where the bodies are buried, and the United Nations may not want him to speak about where the bodies are buried and, therefore, you would want to persuade him not to speak where the bodies are buried? It might lead to the payment of his legal costs so that he does not incur any further personal hardship and, therefore, he would stay quiet. That�s my perception. Now, why is that perception wrong?

Spokesman: From the very beginning, the Secretary-General took action to make sure that Benon Sevan cooperated fully with Mr. Volcker and his panel.

Question: [inaudible] as outlined in the Volcker report.

Spokesman: Well, the Volcker report has not yet issued its final determination on Mr. Sevan�s activities, and so we have to wait for the final report. But you will recall that the Secretary-General first issued an instruction to all members of the Secretariat to cooperate with Mr. Volcker. He then placed Mr. Sevan on a dollar-a-year contract to keep him in the status of a staff member, so that he would be obligated to follow the instructions of the Secretary-General directly as far as cooperating with Volcker. Whether he has fully cooperated with Volcker or not has to be Mr. Volcker�s assessment.

Question: When you say this is done on an exceptional basis, the United Nations is guaranteeing that no other person -� no other United Nations employee -- anywhere is having their legal fees paid for by the United Nations with regard to investigations into misconduct, whatever.

Spokesman: As far as I know. Again, making a system-wide sweep like this and a deep history search if this has ever been done before can�t be done in a couple of hours. But it is my understanding that this is exceptional.

Question: Has the Secretary-General retained a personal lawyer to advise him on the investigation? If so, does he categorically exclude seeking reversal [inaudible]?

Spokesman: I would have to ask the Secretary-General that question and get back to you.

Question: [inaudible] [regarding the salary of the Secretary-General]

Spokesman: That�s in the books. I don�t have the figure in my head. I mean, it�s a matter of record and... Richard?

Question: Did you say it�s all legal fees or were there other things Benon Sevan was looking to be reimbursed for �- copying of documents, cab trips, the trip to Cyprus?

Spokesman: I did not say. I did say he submitted a number of bills to us and that we are reviewing them.

Question: Does the United Nations have any power to make Benon Sevan make a reimbursement to the Organization himself on any funds that may have gone missing due to his fault?

Spokesman: The United Nations does and has in the past sought to recover funds that had been embezzled, and there are a number of ways that can be done. I don�t want to say that applies to Mr. Sevan because, until now, Mr. Volcker has not accused Mr. Sevan of anything criminal. So we are still waiting for the final report.

Question: [inaudible] if there are ... criminal [inaudible] of funds? [inaudible] Does the United Nations have any power to do that?

Spokesman: That�s a technical question. I would have to assume it�s a combination of United Nations sources and national authorities� cooperation. Bank accounts and so on.

Question: Can you explain if there is any relationship between Benon Sevan and his lawyer, Mr. Lewis, and United Nations Legal Department?

Spokesman: First of all, I had no idea that Mr. Sevan�s lawyer�s name is Mr. Lewis. I don�t know who his lawyer is and, therefore, I cannot answer any question about any relationship between his lawyer and the Legal Department, but I would have to assume that there is none.

Question: Could you find out if there is a relationship?

Spokesman: Why would you speculate that there is?

Question: Well, perhaps there is. I am just wondering where Mr. Sevan is getting his legal advice from. If the United Nations is considering aid for it, maybe it is on the advice of the Legal Department for him to have this advice coming from this individual, or another one.

Spokesman: I doubt that very much, but I will ask the question for you.

Question: Would it be cheaper for the United Nations to provide Mr. Sevan with one the United Nations lawyers?

Spokesman: There is probably a legal reason for that. I will ask what it is.

Question: Is there some kind of procedure as to how much the United Nations is willing to pay per hour to this lawyer? Is there some system here, or is it basically �lawyer asks for any fee he wants in the United Nations pay� structure? How is it determined whether it�s a fair price or not?

Spokesman: I said reasonable legal fees as determined by the United Nations.

Question: And I�m just wondering how that is determined.

Spokesman: I can�t give you a dollar amount.

Question: Can you pledge to us that you�ll keep us updated in this room about any payments actually authorized to Mr. Sevan�s legal team?

Spokesman: I can ask my �-

Question: I mean this is taxpayer, money after all, we�re talking about.

Spokesman: Yes, I can ask the Secretary-General�s office if they would give me that information to give to you promptly and regularly.

Question: One, did Mr. Stephanides request payment? Two, just to reclarify. You�re saying nothing has been paid yet. There�s still a decision to be made on that, or this is a definite that certain fees before the Volcker report came out earlier will be paid, or would everything be hinging on what Volcker says about the Secretary-General next week?

Spokesman: I said that Mr. Sevan submitted bills. We have not paid anything yet. We are reviewing what he submitted to us. When we agreed to reimburse him, we did so before the first Volcker report. When that report came out and made specific charges against Mr. Sevan, we informed him at that point that we would not reimburse him for any legal fees that he incurred subsequent to the levelling of chargers against him.

I also said in response to a question by Nick, that I do not know whether we are reviewing our initial decision to reimburse him for the period leading up to the levelling of charges.

Question: And Mr. Stephanides -� has he asked?

Spokesman: To my knowledge, he has not asked. But again I believe that our policy decision was on an exceptional basis for Mr. Sevan as the head of the oil-for-food programme.

Question: You�re saying that it�s under review now, whether you�re going to reimburse him, but the decision was taken to reimburse certain fees.

Spokesman: Don�t twist �- does everyone understand what I said? That the agreement was to reimburse him. That once charges had been levelled, we said from that point forward we would no longer agree to reimburse you, and I do not know whether we are reconsidering the initial offer to reimburse him up to the time when the charges were levelled. I just don�t know that. That�s one of the things I�ll have to get back to you on.

Question: My question was, is there a legal basis, within the United Nations, to revoke that earlier decision to reimburse him for the earlier services that he was receiving?

Spokesman: We�ll have to ask the lawyers that. I don�t know.

Question: Was Mark Malloch Brown already on board when the decision was made? Do you know what day or week the decision was made to make this one-time exception?

Spokesman: I don�t think he was, but I�d have to review the dates.

Thank you very much.

[The Spokesman later announced that he would provide by the end of the day a written statement answering most of the questions put to him at the briefing.]

END QUOTE
\
END OF EXCERPT

« Close It

Secretary General Annan's Report: UN Speak with Positive Goals

By Victor Comras

Secretary General Kofi Annan's comprehensive report on how to adapt and strengthen the UN to handle 21st Century challenges is now public. It covers the full range of UN activities, including, but not limited, to fostering international peace and security. The UN's role in fighting terrorism is only one aspect of this broad strategy, and there are no real surprises. It reflects the "five pillars" approach he outlined in Madrid 11 days ago. "We must act to ensure that catastrophic terrorism never becomes a reality," he says. "This will require a new global strategy, which begins with Member States agreeing on a definition of terrorism and ....{taking} urgent steps to prevent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons getting into the hands of terrorist groups." He wants the General Assembly to pass a Terrorism Convention this year using the definition proposed by the High Level Panel, and for all countries to act quickly to sign and ratify it. Speedy action is also necessary to follow up on an international convention for the suppression of nuclear terrorism. This should be augmented with improved national public health initiatives to thwart biological terrorism. Special efforts are also needed to limit the availablity of small arms, particularly manpads. The International Community, he warns, cannot cede the moral high ground. He wants Member States to establish a special UN rapporteur charged with reporting to the Commission on Human Rights on the compatibility of counter-terrorism measures with international human rights laws. These are all steps that will require action on the parts of governments -- acting in concert in the Security Council and General Assembly, or regionally or nationally. Annan has no specific proposals to strengthen the role of the Secretariat in this regard. That, one can presume, will flow from his more general reforms to improve the professional level of the Secretariat and its management and oversight.

Secretary General Kofi Annan report provides his promised response to the High Level Panel, to the mandate provided him by the Millennium Summit five years ago, and to pressures to bring UN reform and credibility back to the forefront. It lays out new goals and initiatives for the organization. Much of what he proposes is directed at inter-governmental action to beef up the UN's Agenda and consideration of current world problems. His proposals will require special Security Council and General Assembly action.

His proposals are laid out under four broad headings: Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear, Freedom to Live in Dignity, and UN Institutional Reform. For the first he proposes a very active agenda to address international poverty, illiteracy, disease (including HIV/AIDS), and environmental degradation. He also establishes broad goals for economic development and increased international trade. Special attention is paid to the specific problems of poverty, famine and HIV/AIDS in Africa. His "Freedom to Live in Dignity" Strategy places heavy emphasis on promoting democracy, strengthening the rule of law, and assuring both human and civil rights. These are subjects we hear a lot about in the UN context, but which require countries, not the UN, to realign their actions and priorities. Would that the UN could have a major impact on achieving progress in these areas.

In "Freedom from Fear" Annan addresses new actions international community must take to address terrorism, armed conflict, and the spread of armaments and weapons of mass destruction. He proposes that the General Assemby act quickly, and adopt this sixtieth session, an International Suppression of Terrorism Convention, which includes a clear definition of terrorism. He calls for the adoption of the definition put forth by the High Level Panel: "Any action is terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." This should also be accompanied by the conclusion and ratification of a Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The threat posed by biological terrorism is different. The best defense against this danger , he says, lies in strengthening domestic public health resources. Finally, he warns that in combating terrorism we "Cannot cede the moral high ground." He urges member countries to create a "special rapporteur who would report to the Commission on Human Rights on the compatibility of counter-terrorism measures with international human rights laws.'

Member States, he says should also adopt effective national export controls covering missiles and other means of delivery for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, rockets and shoulder-fired missiles, as well as a ban on transferring any of them to non-State actors. The Security Council should also consider adopting a resolution aimed at making it harder for terrorists to acquire or use shoulder-fired missiles.

Sanctions are a vital tool at the disposal of the Security Council for dealing preventively with threats to international peace and security. They constitute the necessary middle ground between war and words, he says, and should be utilized effectively All Security Council sanctions should be effectively implemented and enforced by strengthening State capacity to implement sanctions, establishing well resourced monitoring mechanisms and mitigating humanitarian consequences, he says.

UN Reform comes last in his report. He wants broad institutional reform, including a change in the membership and structure of the Security Council, establishment of a more efficient General Assembly Agenda, and creation of a new International Human Rights Council. We can expect some discussion and debate on all these ideas, but don't hold your breath. The UN hasn�t changed its structures in all these years because it has proved so very difficult to align the necessary national and international interests behind a new consensus on these questions.

Finally, at the end of the report, Kofi Annan indicates what steps he plans to take to reform the secretariat and to establish greater professionalism, accountability and geographic, ethnic and gender balance. Perhaps, most radical is his proposal that the General Assembly provide him the authority to conduct a one time "buy out" to get rid of the ballast and rejuvenate the secretariat. Accountability, he believes, will result from strengthening the resources and independent of the UN's Office of Internal 0versight. What the UN really needs is an independent body outside the UN structure that can audit and report on its activities directly to the Security Council and the General Assembly. That would also hold the Secretary General accountable.

These are all lofty goals "devoutly to be wished." There is a positive aire for UN reform in the air, but deeds will speak much louder than words. Accountability will come from national legislative groups, like the US Congress, and a strident international press, that can publicly and loudly question what the UN is doing. That may have even more effect than empty threats about withholding UN funding.

« Close It

Suspected Terror Training Camps Surface in Iraq

By Evan Kohlmann

Evidence has emerged over the past six months revealing the existence of Al-Qaida-style terrorist training camps at unidentified locations inside Iraq run by suspected local disciples of Usama Bin Laden, such as the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI). The camps feature primarily courses in basic combat and urban warfare tactics, similar to those formerly taught at Al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan�including Sadda, Al-Farooq, and Khalden. The same Iraqi militant groups responsible for organizing these terrorist training camps have also released video footage detailing the production of improvised explosives and rockets, and the use of mobile shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles targeting non-combat aircraft.

Click to view photos c/o Globalterroralert.com

*UPDATE*: (hat tip to Andrew Cochran) This from the Pentagon... "Members of Iraq's 1st Police Commando Battalion today discovered and attacked an apparent insurgent training facility in southwestern Salah Ad Din province... The officers received both indirect and direct fire from the facility as they approached near Lake Tharthar... An early assessment of the site indicates a facility for training insurgents, a Multinational Force Iraq statement said, adding that documentation at the facility indicates that some were foreign fighters."

Old Bosnia Links Reveal Strong Iran ties to al Qaeda

By Douglas Farah

Senior al Qaeda financiers worked more closely with Iranian-backed Islamic radicals in the mid-1990s that previously known, showing that the division between radical Muslim Sunni and Shi'ites was bridged long before the meetings between al Qaeda and Hezbollah in 1996. The key links are Wa'el Jalaidan, a co-founder of al Qaeda and one of two people the Saudis have actually designated as terrorist sponsors; Hasan Cengic, the radical Shi'ite cleric who has spent years in Iran, a former deputy minister of defense and current parliamentarian in Bosnia; and the now (seemingly) defunct Third World Relief Agency (TWRA). The flow of money from a TWRA account to Jalaedan (some $8 million in total from April-June 1993, most of it while Cengic controlled the account) is interesting. What is unusual is that Jalaidan returned about $6 million of the money to the same account in two chunks: $4 million in August 1993 and $2 million in July 1994. Investigators who have studied the records don't know what the transaction was about. But clearly sending those amounts of money back and forth implies a level of cooperation, trust and common agenda between Saudi-backed Sunni radicals and Iranian-backed militants that many in the U.S. intelligence community doubted existed, even after 9-11. For the complete details see my blog.

Iraqis Arrest Suspects in March 9 Al-Sadeer Hotel Bombing

By Andrew Cochran

The government of Iraq has released a press release announcing the arrest of suspects in a March 9 suicide truck bombing attack in Baghdad. Though Al-Qaida has claimed that the attack was aimed at the Al-Sadeer Hotel (host to numerous foreign contractors), the Iraqis continue to insist that the explosives-laden garbage truck was actually targeting the adjacent Ministry of Agriculture building. See Iraqi government press release below:

New Statements from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaida Network in Iraq

By Evan Kohlmann

Al-Qaida's Committee in Iraq--led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--has issued numerous statements over the past week, including statements from the Security Wing Commander and Deputy Commander of Al-Qaida and an additional message of encouragement to Al-Qaida's Committee in Saudi Arabia.

Click to view English translations c/o Globalterroralert.com:
- Mar. 11 response from Al-Qaida to Madrid 3/11 Conference
- Mar. 11 statement from Commander of the Security Wing
- Mar. 14 Brigades of Abu al-Yaman al-Madaini join Al-Qaida
- Mar. 14 message to Al-Qaida's Committee in Saudi Arabia
- Mar. 15 Brigades of Islamic Anger join Al-Qaida in Iraq
- Mar. 16 statement on the withdrawal of Italy from Iraq
- Mar. 16 statement from Deputy Commander of Al-Qaida

Turkey Prosecutor Absolves Yasin Al-Qadi, But Is He Right!

By Victor Comras

Arab News reported March 20th that Turkey�s Chief Public Prosecutor formally ruled there is no evidence to suggest that Saudi businessman Yasin al-Qadi has been involved in any funding for Al Qaeda and that there was no grounds for the Turkish authorities to bring further proceedings against him. It is not clear what effect, if any, this decision may have on Al Qadi's assets in Turkey which include at least two construction companies. Turkey reported to the UN 1267(Al Qaeda) Sanctions Committee last year that it has frozen some $ 2 million in bank accounts related to Yasin Al-Qadi. Despite the Prosecutors ruling, Turkey remains obligated to freeze the assets pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1526 (2004).

What are the facts here? And how strong is the case against Al Qadi?

Yasin Al-Qadi was designated by the US Treasury Department on October 12, 2001 as a �Specially Designated Global Terrorist� pursuant to Executive Order 13224. The statement issued by Treasury indicated that al Qadi was responsible for running the Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation and that "Muwafaq {Blessed Relief is the English Translation} is an al-Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen.... Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief." Al-Qadi�s name was subsequently submitted for UN designation jointly by the United States and Saudi Arabia.

The US Treasury designation of Al-Qadi was based, in part, on a series of FBI investigations into activities which linked Al-Qadi to various charities and companies implicated in channeling money to al Qaeda and Hamas. His Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation appears prominently in these investigations. Other Al Qadi US investments including BMI Real Estate Development, Kadi International, Inc, and Ptech have all come under investigation. Al-Qadi also has numerous interests overseas that have come under suspicion.

A 1998 FBI report linked Al-Qadi to the transfer of funds to Hamas via the Chicago based Quranic Literary Institute. According to Court papers in that case, Al Qadi transferred some $820,000 from a Swiss bank account that ended up with Mohammed Salah, who subsequently used some of the money to obtain weapons for Hamas. Additional funds were also channeled to Hamas leadership.

Al-Qadi and the Muwafaq Foundation were also linked via accounts in the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia to Osama bin Ladin. Bin Ladin, in an interview in 1995 identifed Muwafaq as one of its major funding sources.

Al Qadi has also been implicated in the on-going investigation into allegations that a network of companies and charities in Northern Virgina channeled funds to al Qaeda in Bosnia and elsewhere. This includes a company identified as BMI established by an Egyptian, Soliman Bihieri, who was convicted of visa fraud. According to the affidavit supporting Bihieri�s arrest, BMI served as a financial conduit for several known Hamas and al Qaeda moneymen. Investigators also uncovered in his possession contact information for two individuals described by the Treasury Department as "financial advisers to al-Qaeda.� Funding for BMI came, in large part from Al-Qadi.

FBI Agent Robert Wright has reportedly stated that his investigation into Yasin Al Qadi�s activities led him to believe that Al Qadi was also implicated in funding for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Wright has reportedly detailed several leads that the FBI had, but failed to investigate, concerning al Qadi, in a manuscript entitled "Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission." The FBI has held up release of this manuscript which is now caught up in a legal wrangle between Wright and the Agency. Wright played a key role in the investigation code-named "Vulgar Betrayal," which led to the 1998 seizure of $1.4 million of U.S. funds "destined for terrorist activities."

« Close It

Car Bombing in Qatar - A Response to Orders from Al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia?

By Evan Kohlmann

DOHA (Reuters) - A car bomb killed one Briton and wounded at least 12 people on Saturday at a theater frequented by Westerners in Qatar, the command center for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq which began exactly two years ago. "The explosion was caused by a rigged car. One person was killed and 12 were wounded, of whom 10 have left hospital," the Interior Ministry said in a statement carried on the state news agency QNA. The British Foreign Office in London said the dead person was a Briton, and added that the nationality and sex of the wounded were not known. Qatari sources said the attack in the capital Doha was carried out by a suicide bomber -- the first attack of its kind in oil-producing Qatar, which hosts the U.S. military's Central Command.

In an unlikely coincidence, an apparent suicide car bomb has been triggered in Qatar only days after a prominent Al-Qaida commander in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Aoofi, announced the following to Al-Qaida supporters across the Arabian Gulf:

"I command all the brave lions of jihad in Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and all the countries surrounding Iraq... to attack every soldier, machine, military base, and aircraft in his country so the crusaders will be undermined. If every bee stings the pig from a different direction then he will die from his wounds�"

American nationals and military personnel stationed throughout the Arabian Gulf should remain on alert for potential successive terrorist attacks in the region.

UPDATE: From the Associated Press... "Qatari authorities identified a charred body at the site as the suicide bomber, Omar Ahmed Abdullah Ali. They said the Egyptian owned the car used in Saturday's attack on the Doha Players Theater in the northern suburb of Farek Kelab... Ali worked as a computer programmer for the state-owned Qatar Petroleum Co., according to an employee of the firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Ali, who was in his 30s, had worked there for five years and was married with two children, the employee said, adding that police had visited the company's offices Sunday and seized Ali's computer and other belongings."

New Videos from the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI)

By Evan Kohlmann

[*UPDATED*] The Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) has released three videos of recent roadside bomb attacks on U.S. forces near Baghdad. The first attack on a supposed CIA convoy in Al-Yousifiya (south of Baghdad) on March 17 allegedly killed two of the occupants in the vehicle. In the second attack on March 19 also in Al-Yousifiya, IAI operatives used a burning wreck in order to conceal a roadside bomb targeting a passing U.S. Humvee, allegedly killing two of its crew. The final IAI video shows footage from twin roadside bomb attacks on March 20 in the suburb of Abu Ghraib (west of Baghdad)--the first targeting a U.S. Humvee and the second aimed at an alleged CIA convoy.

Click to view video c/o Globalterroralert.com:
- Mar. 17 video of IAI roadside bomb attack on "CIA" convoy
- Mar. 19 video of IAI roadside bomb attack on U.S. Humvee
- Mar. 20 video of IAI twin bomb attacks in Abu Ghraib (*NEW*)

Guess Who Came for Breakfast

By Michael Kraft

Gerry Adams may have been snubbed by the White House on St Patrick's Day but he had
some unusual breakfast neighbors when American supporters of the Sinn Fein, the "political" wing of the IRA, held a breakfast for him at the Capitol Hilton hotel that morning.

In an adjoining ball room, Frances Townsend, the White House's Homeland Security Advisor, was addressing a breakfast of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security. Some of the attendees almost went to the wrong room.

The audience of a couple hundred at the Townsand breakfast included many persons who had worked on terrorism issues in various government agencies. There was no visible sign of security. although security men were spotted at the entrances to the crowded Sinn Fein breakfast.

It appears that supporters, or at the least sympathizers, of terrorists were better protected Thursday morning than those who fight terrorism.

Suspected Religious Persecutor Denied Entry Into US

By Bill West

The New York Times today released a Reuters report confirming the US State Department revoked the visitor�s visa of Indian Gujarat state chief minister Narendra Modi. The reason for the visa revocation is reported to be Modi�s alleged involvement in the massacre of up to 2500 people, most of them Muslims, in his state in 2002. Modi supposedly officially ignored the massacre, and the State Department report on the massacre said Modi�s police and other officials in some instances �abetted� anti-Muslim violence during the rioting.

Alleged Terrorist's Lawyers Target Contributing Expert Evan Kohlmann (Updated)

By Andrew Cochran

In a bizarre 25-page motion filed yesterday in federal court, the lawyers for accused terrorist Ali Al-Timimi seek to keep the government from using Contributing Expert Evan Kohlmann as an expert witness. Al-Timimi is alleged to have induced and assisted aid to the Taliban by serving as the spiritual leader of the "Virginia Jihad gang," of which a number of members have already been convicted or pleaded guilty. That group has also been linked to Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, recently indicted for allegedly supporting Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and accused of plotting to assassinate President Bush.

The motion to disqualify Evan omits key facts and is factually incorrect in numerous places, which only highlights its absurdity. To begin with, it doesn't include Evan's correct age. But there are other, more serious mistakes: (UPDATE - the judge denied the motion, saying, "(T)his court has watched him testify (in the previous trial) and he is in my view well qualified to testify.")

Contributing Expert, Former U.N. Insider, Issues Wake-Up Call

By Andrew Cochran

The U.S. government should not spend one more dime on the United Nations without listening to Victor Comras. Yesterday, before the U.S. House terrorism subcommittee chaired by Rep. Ed Royce, he recounted the poor performance of the United Nations in stopping terrorism since he left the independent Al Qaeda-Taliban Monitoring Group last year. As Douglas Farah has discussed here, the Monitoring Group on which Victor served for two years produced valid and critical reports that "named and shamed" those countries which did not chase down the terrorists as mandated under U.N. resolutions. But the Group's reports were too much for the mushy-headed U.N. bureaucrats who couldn't take the heat from those states - they disbanded the Monitoring Group, with our State Department's consent, and replaced it with more pliant group under their thumb and with no desire or mechanism for enforcement. As Victor testified yesterday, "This has permitted many designated al Qaeda financial facilitators, such as Youssef Nada, Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, and Yassin al Qadi, to carry on their worldwide business activities." Congress should consider implementing Victor's recommendations for a revitalized U.N. in the war against terrorism before further appropriating taxpayers' funds.

WITH MEXICAN FRIENDS LIKE THIS WHO NEEDS ENEMIES

By Larry Johnson

by
Larry C. Johnson

There is a terrorist threat in Mexico against Americans only it is from Mexican police. Two weeks ago (March 4th) a senior US Government official with the Transportation Security Administration was brutally attacked. This official, who is in charge of surveying and assessing Mexican airports to ensure that they meet the U.S. Government security requirements, left his hotel room in Tijuana, Mexico on Friday evening and crossed the street to buy his daughter a gift. While returning from the gift shop he was accosted by two Mexican police officers. They pulled the U.S. Federal agent into an alley and beat him while demanding $1,000.

The U.S. official told the thugs that his wallet with his ATM card was in the hotel. The aspiring theives accompanied the the Federal agent into the hotel. The U.S. official hollered to the hotel security personnel for help but was ignored. The Mexican police forced him outside the hotel and continued beating him. He was then put into a Mexican police vehicle, taken to the Tijuana jail, and put into a holding cell with 50 other unfortunate souls. He continued to tell the police that he was a U.S. Federal Law Enforcement officer with the Transportation Security Administration.

Congressional Efforts to Hold Taylor Accountable for Al Qaeda Connections, Human Rights Abuses, Grow

By Douglas Farah

The asylum in Nigeria of Charles Taylor, former Liberian strongman and al Qaeda diamond facilitator, is coming under more sustained scrutiny by Congress. As evidence mounts of Taylor's continued meddling in West African affairs ( including orchestrating an assassination attempt against Guinean president Lansana Conte), the House, led by Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) and Frank Wolf (R-VA) are trying to increase pressure on the State Department to at least put Taylor's status on the agenda. A the heart of their demands for action are Taylor's past role in selling "blood diamonds" to al Qaeda and his human rights atrocities. Both have seen the evidence and, despite the FBI's ongoing attempts to attack the information, believe, as I do, that the diamond deals were real and important to al Qaeda's financial well-being. Even laying the al Qaeda ties aside, Taylor has now so clearly violated the terms of his asylum agreement that it is difficult to imagine that Nigeria cannot be induced to hand him over to the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, where he is indicted on 18 counts of crimes against humanity.

Al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia Issues New Message to Zarqawi, Calls for Attacks in the Gulf

By Evan Kohlmann

Al-Qaida's Committee in the Arabian Peninsula has issued a new audio statement on behalf of its commander, Saleh bin Mohammed al-Aoofi (a.k.a. Abu Abdullah), to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the mujahideen fighting in Iraq alongside him. Among other points, al-Aoofi urges those who support jihad in the entire Arabian Gulf region to rise up and "attack every soldier, machine, military base, and aircraft in his country so the crusaders will be undermined. If every bee stings the pig from a different direction then he will die from his wounds."

Click to view English translation c/o Globalterroralert.com

"Constructive Instability" in Lebanon and Syria

By Matthew Levitt

The Bush Administration�s policy of �constructive instability� in the Middle East is facing a critical juncture in Lebanon. Taking advantage of a rare confluence of events and international interests, President George W. Bush has focused U.S. efforts on one plank of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1559�the withdrawal of Syrian forces�as the first order of business.

Defining the next steps requires a policy mix of persistence and incrementalism, identifying and pursuing high-priority, short-term goals, the very achievement of which will lay the foundation for the next set of objectives. These include monitoring Lebanese elections, disarming Hezbollah, and dealing with potential instability in Syria.

Also critical is an understanding of the utility and limits of regional instability, the uniqueness of Lebanon and Syria within the context of other regional developments, and the need to promote true democrats, not just democracy.

These issues are explored in detail in a two-part Policywatch analysis by Robert Satloff. Part one, focused on constructive instability in the context of Lebanon and Syria, can be found here. Part two, on the reginal implications of a policy of constructive instability, can be found here.

Libya: It's Not so Simple

By Michael Kraft

By Michael B. Kraft

Not so fast, not so easy. The Bush Administration has told Congress that it hopes to be able to take Libya off the list of state sponsors of terrorism but it still has �troubling questions� about an alleged Libyan plot to kill the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

The discussion of the warming U.S.-Libyan relationship came when Bill Burns, the acting Under Secretary of State testified Wednesday before the House International Relations Committee.

Libya has long sought to get off the terrorism list and the issue has been discussed with Tripoli for some time in connection with Libya�s agreement to finally provide compensation to families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 that was blown up over Scotland in 1998. Libya has been a charter member of the terrorism list since it was authorized in the Export Administration Act of 1979.

But there are hoops that the Executive Branch and the country in question must go through before the country can be removed from the terrorist list. The procedures allows time for Congress to block the action if it votes to do so.

After the State Department precipitously took Iraq off the terrorism list in 1982 when the US was tilting toward Baghdad in the Iran-Iraq war, Congress enacted legislation requiring that it be notified in advance before a country can be removed from the terrorism list. The Antiterrorism and Arms Export Amendments Act of 1989 requires the president to make a formal determination and inform Congress that he has determined that the government of that country has not supported acts of international terrorism for the previous six months. The president must also declare that the government concerned has provided assurances that it will not support acts of terrorism in the future. The interim government of Iraq was removed from the list in October, 2004, the first time the procedures in the 1989 law were used..

The six month requisite period in the 1989 law was a compromise worked out between the State Department and key members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In practice, for example, in preparing the annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report, the State Department looks at a country�s record over a much longer period than six months. The 45-day notification period was also a compromise, intended to give Congress time to react, for example by passing an amendment or resolution if it so chose, without spelling out the exact legislative procedures. Nor does the law spell out the precise form of the assurances a country must give that it will not support acts of terrorism in the future.

However a Presidential Determination would have to pass Congressional scrutiny. The assurances that the leadership of country gives that it will not support terrorism in the future must pass the �laugh test.� Whispering sweet nothings in t he ear of an Ambassador or Secretary of State will not suffice

The Libyans are aware of these legal requirements. This makes it all the more puzzling to read the reports that the Saudis have evidence of Libyan involvement a plot to kill the Crown Prince, the country�s ruler? Could Qafaffi be crazy enough to engage in such a plot when t hey are trying to make nicely nicely with the West? Qadaffi has done a number of strange things in his career.

The Saudi allegations were outlined at some length in the Washington Post last week and are more than troubling, although it is difficult from here to determine how the strength of their case. But the Administration must take the charges seriously even though Saudi Arabia is sometimes a difficult country to work with and has tried to minimize the threats from its own fundamentalists. And it has been slow in cracking down on the funding flow from its citizens and even royal family members that goes to front groups for terrorists.

We have been trying to work with the Saudis, however, and by most accounts are making some progress. We do have many common interests. If our counterterrorism policy is to have any credibility, if we are going to continue to urge them to crack down on terrorism funding, we cannot be seen as ultimately brushing aside the Saudi charges against Libya just because they are inconvenient for the oil companies and others ose who want to improve relations with Tripoli.

Ambassador Burns testified that the U.S. hopes to reopen an embassy in Tripoli byt he end of this year. We should not rush to take further conciliatory steps toward Libya or start drafting the memos recommending removal of Tripoli from the terrorism list until the Saudis conclude their investigation and trails. We must respect their concerns about an alleged attack on their leader just as we would if it had been a plot against our close British or Australian friends.

« Close It

No Anthrax Anywhere - anybody remember "Young Frankenstein?"

By Andrew Cochran

So much for this story...a mistake at a DOD lab resulted in false positives at two DOD facilities, and tests at the Washington V Street postal facility are all negative. Someone at the DOD lab confused a sample of actual anthrax kept for comparisons with the Pentagon mailroom sample. Reminds me of that scene in the hilarious Mel Brooks film "Young Frankenstein" where Marty Feldman, as Igor, explains to Gene Wilder's Dr. Frankenstein, that he picked up the brains in a jar with a label marked..."Abby something...Abby...Normal...I'm almost sure that was the name." Now we know - Igor LIVES!

Washington Anthrax story - continous updates

By Andrew Cochran

As of 18:30 today: More than 70 more tests in and around the Pentagon have failed to turn up any evidence of anthrax contamination since the initial positive test March 14, DoD?s top doctor said today.

A Washington Postal Service facility is now closed and being tested - all Pentagon mail travels through that site first - and all workers there are being given antibiotics as a precautionary measure. Recall that the D.C. Brentwood Avenue mail facility was the central point for the D.C. anthrax attacks in 2001 and remained closed for almost two years. Irony of ironies: the NJ mail facility through which the anthrax passed in 2001 re-opened yesterday after 3+ years (thanks Jeffrey Imm for link).

Washington's WRC-TV and WTOP report that "powdery substance" at Washington IRS building is NOT anthrax but possibly a rat poison - more testing underway. WTOP reports that the "suspicious substance" at the Washington CNN building is NOT anthrax, but possibly ammonium phosphate.

Pentagon: From WTOP & AP in Washington, citing Pentagon spokesman: The "mail that tested positive for anthrax passed through the Pentagon's mail handling facility on Thursday, not Monday...the test results on the mail did not come back until Monday." Wash Post: "Samples taken at a Pentagon mail facility were positive for anthrax in preliminary overnight tests, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services reported today. But officials do not yet know definitively if anthrax bacteria are present or, if they are, whether they could have transmitted disease." DOD press release: "Pentagon officials are working to collect an estimated 8,000 pieces of mail that passed through the building?s mail-processing facility between March 10 and 14."

The FBI is now investigating this matter along with Postal Service investigators.

The Center for Disease Control's site on anthrax is excellent.

Anthrax at Pentagon/other buildings (updated)?

By Andrew Cochran

Substance at Pentagon mail facility initially tests positive for anthrax. UPDATE, 3/15, 11:00 - Second set of tests on the Pentagon's mail facility (actually located in an adjacent building) were negative, but more testing will be done. Also, a sensor at another DOD mail facility several miles away signaled a possible biological substance, forcing government and private sector workers in three office buildings to stay inside for almost six hours. Mail is transported between the buildings, which would explain the detection at both locations in the same day. The buildings remain closed until further notice.

This Week in Congress: Victor Comras Testifies & This Week's Hearings

By Andrew Cochran

Contributing Expert Victor Comras will testify on the U.N.'s role in the fight against terrorism on March 17 before the House International Relations Terrorism Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Ed Royce. Here is the complete list of this week's open terrorism-related hearings.

Madrid Terrorism Conference Makes Important Recommendations. But, Will Anybody Listen?

By Victor Comras

The Madrid International Summit on Democracy, Security, and Terrorism came and went without much press coverage, or notice, in the United States. Other countries gave it somewhat greater play. It brought together some 200 international leaders, personages and terrorism experts. It provided a backdrop for a dozen or more major speeches by world leaders reaffirming their commitment to fight terrorism. This included the annoucement by Secretary General Kofi Annan of a new United Nations Global Anti-Terrorism Strategy. And, it commemorated the tragic Madrid train bombing, as well as 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in Dar-es-Salaam, Nairobi, Tel Aviv, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Baghdad, Bombay, and Beslan. Its final message was named the "Madrid Agenda." And it is a very important document. But who will read it, and will it ever be implemented? The International Community may just be too set in its current ways of treating international terrorism to pay much regard.

The Madrid Agenda sets forth an activist program for combating terrorism worldwide. It lays out a series of principles that should provide increased backbone for international and national action against terrorism. First on the list is a clear statement that "TERRORISM IS A CRIME AGAINST ALL HUMANITY.'

The Madrid Conference consisted of key speeches, panel discussions, and teams of experts developing specific recommendations. Those attending sought to develop, what the final document called "A Comprehensive Reponse to Terrorism." "We owe it to the victims," the final report states, "to bring the terrorists to justice."

"A multilateral approach is indispensable," the final document states, and international institutions, especially the United Nations, must become "more transparent, democratic and effective in combating the threat." National law enforcement agencies also need the powers required. Military action may also be necessary. But, whatever measures are used to counter terrorism, they must "fully respect international standards of human rights and the rule of law."

The final recommendations provide a broad agenda for combating terrorism and treating the underlying risk factors. They lay out an activist program. This includes adoption of a direct and simple definition of terrorism as "any action ...intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.�

The final document also recommends that the United Nations act quickly to implement the Secretary General's Global Anti-Terrorism Strategy. In addition countries should undertake new efforts to coordinate their law enforcement and military actions against terrorism. This must inclued increased information sharing and cooperation between national intelligence and enforcement agencies, strengthening the role of regional organzations, and creating new mechanisms to promote and protect victim rights..

The Conference also recommends that actions be taken to treat the underlying risk factors including the "creation of programmes, national and international, to monitor the expression of racism, ethnic confrontation and religious extremism, their impact in the media, as well as to review school textbooks for their stance on cultural and religious tolerance."

What now? What happens to this Madrid Agenda? What can we expect to result? The first test will be to see what steps the United Nations takes to implement its own new global strategy. The devil will be in the details, and developing the necessary political consensus to adopt these measures may prove quite difficult. Beyond that, the UN must find new ways to hold its members accountable when they fail to comply with any new or existing measures. Unfortunately, the United Nations has not always been successful in this regard.

For its part, the Club de Madrid, which sponsored the conference, will present the Madrid Agenda to the United Nations, the forthcoming Community of Democracies ministerial meeting in Chile, as well as other institutions and governments. They have promised to engage with universities, specialised research institutes and think-tanks to elaborate the proposals made by the Summit�s working groups and panels.
"The space for dialogue and exchange of ideas opened by this Summit," they say, ""must continue."

The full text of the Madrid Agenda is here

« Close It

U.S. Senators' Letter on Saudi Violations of Religious Freedom & Extremist Teachings

By Andrew Cochran

Fifteen Senators of both parties, led by Sens. Susan Collins and Charles Schumer, sent a letter today to Sec. of State Rice about Saudi Arabia's violations of religious freedom and the continued export of extremist teachings from Saudi Arabia. The Senators express their �appreciation for the Department of State�s 2004 designation of Saudi Arabia as a �country of particular concern� (CPC) for its systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.� Moreover, they urge Sec. Rice to persuade the Saudi government to stop the distribution of such material and to implement other measures to curtail Saudi-based extremism. The State Department has a March 15 deadline, under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, to take action against Saudi Arabia for the designation of the Kingdom as a severe violator of religious freedom.

The letter cites the outstanding study released by Freedom House of Saudi-sponsored extremist teachings in the U.S, as previously discussed on this blog here and here. And it needs their defense, because it is now under fire by those who use the standard language of anti-Christian and anti-Semite bigots.

Africa: The Next Afganistan?

By Michael Kraft

Concerned that Africa could become another Afghanistan-style haven for terrorists, a House International Relations Subcommittee heard State Department and Defense Department officials call for long term and coordinated assistance to deter future major attacks.

Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), the new chairman of the HIRC Subcommittee on Terrorism and Non-Proliferation, held a hearing yesterday afternoon to discuss U.S training efforts he described as �aimed at eliminating the �next Afghanistan�; another terrorist sanctuary like the one from which Osama bin Ladin initiated the 9/11 attacks.�

Royce noted that �Historically Africa has been ignored, yet it was in Tanzania and Kenya that our embassies were attacked and Americans and Africans were killed. Osma bin Ladin was harbored early on in Sudan. The terrorist threat in Africa is real and growing.�

In the previous session of Congress, Rep. Royce was chairman of the HIRC Africa subcommittee. In January, he visited Chad where the U.S. is training troops under the Pan-Sahel Initiative (PSI).

William Pope, the State Department�s Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism, testified that $8.4 million is being spent on the PSI, to provide counterterrorism training focused on Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Chad. To complement the military training, the State Department�s Antiterrorism Assistance Program (ATA) has provided $6.6 million to civilian law enforcement officials in FY 2004 and 2005, he said.

Rear Admiral Hamlin B. Tallent, Director of the European Plans and Operations Center for the United States European Command (EUCOM) said Africa was a danger point for terrorism because �the broad expanses of ungoverned or poorly governed regions, as well as the proximity and ease of movement to population centers in Europe, are increasingly attractive to transnational terrorists interested in exploiting the region for recruiting, logistics and safe havens. The breeding grounds of terrorism and illicit activity on the continent of Africa require our attention at both the national and regional security level.�

Rep. Brad Sherman D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said that in working out assistance, it is important to prioritize and identify both the key problems, and �which countries have the desire but not the resources� to strengthen their ability to take measures against terrorists.

Admiral Tallent, departing from his text in his opening remarks, said it is not enough to offer aid on a short term basis. �We have to look at our programs in the long term. We can not just provide some training and walk away, we need continued efforts, over five to six years,� Admiral Tallent said.

�We are running a marathon, not a sprint,� Pope said. �The starter gun went off in 1993 with the first attack on the World Trade Center� There is no question that Americans are safer if we can assist our international partners to stop terrorists overseas, before they are able to bring violence to our home shores. That assistance must be robust and sustained for its efforts to be realized,� he added.

Both witnesses put their finger on a key problem. In many countries in Africa and elsewhere, there is a shortage of qualified personnel. Often when the officials do receive training from the U.S. and other countries, they sometimes later move onto other positions, making it necessary to train replacements to sustain continued capability. Meanwhile, the budgets are spread thin. The FYI 2006 request sent to Congress after it was approved by OMB is $133 .5 million. Africa traditionally gets a smaller slice of the pie than the Middle East, South Asia and other regions.

Coordination is another issue, although improving. Admiral Tallent said under questioning that there are problems in short-term interagency coordination. He said the State Department and Defense Departments do not seem to have the same planning tools and process. These differences in bureaucratic cultures and processes �are stifling our ability to do more international planning,� Tallent told the subcommittee.

Pope said there were a number of existing coordinating mechanisms (one interagency group deals with coordinating training). In his prepared testimony Pope said �there must be a solid coordination of our engagement assistance abroad. �In our missions overseas, the more nuanced work of ensuring collaboration among various members of the country teams is and must remain the responsibility of the Chief of Mission.�

This is a long-standing State Department position but the emphasis in the testimony apparently is in reaction to press reports that the Pentagon was seeking White House approval to have authority to insert small Special Forces teams into a country without notifying the U.S. Ambassador.

The hearing was Pope�s last Congressional testimony. He is retiring from the Foreign Service today after 35 years in government Service. His quick departure is another reflection of the continuing turnover in the Administration�s counterterrorism and Homeland Security leadership. The previous coordinator, Cofer Black served about two years and announced his retirement on Election Day. He departed two weeks later and recently joined a security firm, Blackwell. Pope, then the principal deputy, became acting coordinator. The new acting coordinator will be the current deputy, Karen Aguilar, a Foreign Service officer. No word has surfaced yet on a possible new coordinator.

« Close It

Michael Cutler's testimonies on immigration issues this week

By Andrew Cochran

Contributing Expert Michael Cutler, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and a former senior immigration agent testified twice this week on immigration issues. On March 9, he testified before the House Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee that the U.S. law enforcement assets in the Homeland Security Department need to be reorganized and refocused if we are to stop terrorists from coming across our borders. Currently, new immigration agents are not even receiving Spanish-language training, which was part of the agents' training curriculum in the old Immigration and Naturalization Service. On March 10, Mr. Cutler testified before the House Judiciary Immigration & Border Security Subcommittee that the Administration's request for 143 additional border agents was far too small to protect national security, especially given that the intel reform act authorized hundreds of new agents.

Arms Merchant Victor Bout Continues to Fly, with Help From his Friends

By Douglas Farah

More than nine months ago the State Department asked the rest of the government to cut off contracts with companies associated with Viktor Bout, the world's largest arms merchant who is alleged to have supplied weapons to the Taliban and al Qaeda. It took five months for Defense Department to begin to respond and cancel some of his contracts to fly ammuniton and contract personnel into Iraq and around the region. Bout was dubbed the "Merchant of Death" by a senior British official because, through his web of airplanes and weapons-buying contacts Bout supplied hundreds of tons of weapons to some of the most unsavory characters on the planet, many connected to terrorism. These include Charles Taylor in Liberia, who sold diamonds to al Qaeda; rebels in the Congo and Angola, the drug-trafficking FARC in Colombia, Abu Sayef in the Philippines, and others. Juan Zarate, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, recently called Bout "arguably the largest private arms dealer in the world today," willing to supply "guns and bullets by the ton, as well as advanced equipment such as attack helicopters, to anyone willing to pay his price."

Yet, astoundingly, the Pentagon remains among those willing to pay his price. Airplanes from Bout-controlled Aerocom company, using the call sign "MCC," continue to fly for private contractors and Pentagon clients there. And he may be getting help from some others in the murky world of Private Military Companies.

Two Forums Addressing Significant Anti-Money Laundering Regulatory Issues

By Dennis Lormel

By Dennis M. Lormel

Two events in the past week served to bring certain relevant issues into better focus. The issues involved the myriad of concerns on the part of the banking industry in continuing to maintain the bank accounts of money service businesses (MSBs). Banks are worried that they will be subject to regulatory action if they maintain "high risk" MSB accounts. The two forums were the Money Laundering Alert Tenth Annual International Money Laundering Conference and Exhibition, and the Joint Meeting of the FinCEN sponsored Nonbank Financial Institutions and Examination Subcommittees of the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group (BSAAG).

Money laundering and terrorist financing present complex challenges for both the government and financial sectors. This has become increasingly more evident in the banking industry, where conflicting perspectives have endangered the existence of money services businesses (MSBs). Because of real and perceived pressure from regulators, banks have increasingly closed out the accounts MSBs maintained in their institutions. Banks and regulators view MSBs as posing �high risk� for money laundering and terrorist financing because of the cash nature of MSBs and the fact that they deal extensively with immigrant communities. The combination of cash transactions and know your customer (KYC) considerations have caused the banks to become wary of regulatory actions if they continue to deal with MSBs.

Money launderers, fraudsters and terrorist financiers tend to be expert at the identification and exploitation of financial systemic vulnerabilities. This fact gained significant visibility in the aftermath of 9/11. With an immediate sense of urgency following 9/11, intended to eliminate gaps and control weaknesses, legal and regulatory measures were implemented or redefined. Thanks to provisions in the Patriot Act and Bank Secrecy Act the law enforcement, intelligence and regulatory communities have achieved noteworthy accomplishments in disrupting or preventing terrorist financing activities. However, aspects of the Bank Secrecy Act addressing Anti Money Laundering compliance have increasingly become cause for concern and confusion between the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), financial regulators and the financial industry. Two events in the past week served to bring certain relevant issues into better focus. They were the Money Laundering Alert Tenth Annual International Money Laundering Conference and Exhibition, and the Joint Meeting of the FinCEN sponsored Nonbank Financial Institutions and Examination Subcommittees of the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group (BSAAG).

By way of background, MSBs have been defined by FinCEN as check cashers, traveler�s check sellers, currency exchangers, stored value sellers and money transmitters. Nearly 23,000 MSBs are registered with FinCEN in accordance with the Patriot Act. It is estimated that another 600,000 MSBs are not yet registered. Annually, MSBs transmit billions of dollars to the homeland of their customers, mostly immigrants. Banks have increasingly been closing accounts of MSBs because of fear of regulatory action and civil penalties, due to culpability for dealing with MSBs. As noted earlier, regulators and banks consider MSBs to be �high risk� customers. This creates AML and KYC concerns, which were exacerbated by a lack of clear regulatory guidance from FinCEN or regulatory agencies. As MSBs lose their banking relationships they will be forced to go underground to conduct business if they want to stay open. This would obviously be bad for everyone except criminal and terrorist elements, which could exploit this underground median.

This has been an issue of growing concern recognized by the American Bankers Association (ABA), FinCEN, regulators and financial institutions. There have been considerable discussions about this issue among the involved segments of the community. FinCEN issued a statement on February 18, 2005 (updated on February 28) announcing that a fact finding meeting would be held on March 8, 2005. FinCEN stated that the Nonbank Financial Institutions and the Examination Subcommittees of FinCENs BSAAG would host a meeting to solicit information on issues surrounding the provision of banking services to money services businesses. Issues concerning the challenges and understandings of depository institutions and MSBs would be discussed at the fact finding meeting. The meeting was open to representatives who had a stake in the issues.

On a positive note, Bill Fox, Director, FinCEN and John Byrne, Director, Regulatory Compliance, ABA, have established a productive and cooperative working relationship. They have openly worked to identify regulatory issues and concerns, such as the MSB situation, and to establish a middle ground whereby meaningful solutions can be formulated. Fox and Byrne have established themselves as credible leaders in representing their respective constituencies. Although significant issues and concerns pertaining to AML regulation persist, there is room for optimism. The cooperative spirit exhibited by Fox and Byrne exemplifies the meaning of public/private partnering that sets a positive tone for government and industry.

The FinCEN BSAAG meeting of March 8, 2005, was preceded by The Tenth Annual International Money Laundering Conference and Exhibition. The conference was held from March 2nd through March 4th, in Hollywood, Florida. Well over 1,300 AML professionals from 65 countries attended. This conference is widely regarded as one of the preeminent AML conferences in the world. Leading AML experts led panel discussions that addressed topics to include terrorist financing, Patriot Act compliance, banking issues, non-banking issues and international considerations. Interestingly, the MSB/banking issue was a repetitive subject during different panel discussions. The FinCEN BSAAG impending March 8th meeting was referred to frequently. Another area of concern that was addressed was the level of inconsistency on the part of regulators when conducting bank examinations and issuing guidance. This is an area where the ABA, FinCEN and regulators are working to establish a level of continuity that will alleviate inconsistencies and collateral confusion. This conference was an overwhelming success because of its role in fostering awareness to regulatory issues and concerns, and notably for subject matter experts who shared their first hand best practices experience.

Bob Werner, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and William Langford, Associate Director, Policy and Programs Division, FinCEN, each discussed their respective agency�s mandates of establishing and maintaining public/private partnerships, and the need to improve agency transparency. This was particularly noteworthy for OFAC, since the banking industry has been critical of OFAC on the issue of transparency. Forums such as this are invaluable for serving as platforms to articulate the varying perspectives of different segments of the industry, as well as that of government agencies.

Charlie Intriago, the founder of Money Laundering Alert is the architect of this annual conference. Intreago is one of the world�s foremost AML experts. He was a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in Miami and in 1989 he recognized the need to establish a forum to address money laundering on a full time basis. The manner in which Intriago choreographed the Annual AML Conference ensured that relevant issues were fully discussed. He accomplished this through the engagement of substantive speakers, relevant content of subject matters and inclusion of conference participants in open forums. Again, one area of specific concern was the MSB/banking issue. Those attendees who were also scheduled to participate in the coming FinCEN BSAAG meeting were introduced to a variety of views.

On March 8, 2005, FinCEN Nonbank Financial Institutions and the Examinations Subcommittees of the BSAAG conducted a closed-door fact finding meeting concerning the MSB/banking issue. The Washington Post reported that about 50 representatives of banks and money services businesses made presentations at the meeting. The intent of the meeting was to set the stage for formulating and implementing solutions to this complex problem. The key issue is the fact that banks are closing out MSB bank accounts due to their concern of becoming subject to regulatory action because of the real or perceived �high risk� nature of MSBs. Banks have complained that they have not received adequate regulatory guidance in this area. MSBs have noted that they implemented AML programs and that banks and regulators have misperceived the risk.

In a statement issued by FinCEN following the meeting, FinCEN stated �The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has long recognized that the money services business industry provides valuable financial services, especially to groups and individuals that may not have ready access to the formal banking sector. Moreover, we believe it is imperitive that money services businesses remain within the formal financial sector, and not be driven underground. Accordingly, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is committed to ensuring their continued access to banking services. At the same time, we believe it essential that the money services business industry maintain the same level of transparency, and implement the full range of anti money laundering controls, as banking institutions.�

Establishing and implementing solutions in a timely fashion will be challenging. However, conferences and meetings such as those described herein assist in the process of better understanding issues in a broader context and identifying a middle ground for developing and implementing multi-dimensional solutions that serve to satisfy the interests of all involved parties. In the MSB/bank conflict, the next steps described by FinCEN will include developing specific guidance, education and regulation.

« Close It

Kofi Annan Outlines New UN Global Strategy to Combat Terrorism

By Victor Comras

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan used the Madrid International Summit on Democracy, Security and Terrorism to outlined what he called a new �principled, comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism globally.� He was responding to the recommendations of a High Level Panel established last year that addressed 'threats, challenges, and changes� facing the organization. High on its list of findings was the inadequate United Nations response to international terrorism. The report found that the United Nations �has not made the best use of its assets in the fight against terrorism and needs to articulate an effective and principled counter-terrorism strategy.� (see my earlier posting)

The new strategy outlined by the Secretary General in a speech March 10 in Madrid would engage the broad spectrum of UN organs, including the Secretariat, the Security Council, the General Assembly, and many of the UN subsidiary and specialized agencies. It would seek to:

-- Dissuade disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic to achieve their goals;
-- Deny terrorists the means to carry out their attacks;
-- Deter States from supporting terrorists;
-- Develop State capacity to prevent terrorism; and
-- Defend human rights in the struggle against terrorism.

The high level panel also placed great emphasis on the need to develop an international binding definition of terrorism that would provide the basis for a common commitment to act against all persons and entities that engage in terrorism. The absence of such an agreed definition has provided many countries with enough �wiggle room� to avoid taking on their international responsibilities in this regard. The definition put forth by the High Level Panel is simply and straightforward. �Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.� The Secretaru General made achieving such an agreed definition a pillar of this new strategy.

These are lofty and difficult goals, and their realization should be supported and assisted by all of us. But, these goals can only be reached if the United Nations is willing to do some of the things it does, differently. The devil will be in the details, and developing the necessary political consensus to adopt these measures may prove quite difficult. Beyond that, the UN must find new ways to hold its members accountable when they fail to comply with any new or existing measures. Unfortunately, the United Nations has not been very successful, to date, in this regard.

« Close It

EU brands Hizballah "terrorist" group

By Matthew Levitt

The European Union Parliament passed a resolution today branding Hizballah as a terrorist group and affirming that the EU Council should take all necessary steps to curtail terrorist activities undertaken by Hizballah. While a step short of adding the group to the EU's list of banned terrorist groups, the parliamentary decision marks a turning point in European attitudes toward Hizballah. This shift has been in the works for the past few months; the decision follows France's December 2004 decision to ban Hizballah's satelite television station and a German court's ruling in January 2005 that described Hizballah as a terrorist group.

Contraty to press reports that the U.S. position on Hizballah has shifted toward that of France and other countries inclined to bring Hizballah into the Lebanese political mainstream, Secretary of State Rice reaffirmed today that "the American view of Hizballah has not changed."

Washington does not oppose Hizballah's particiaption in Lebanese politics, it takes issue with the violent guerilla and terrorist operations the groups carries out at the same time. Based on these violent activities, Hezbollah has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity (SDGT) by the Treasury Departent. Several individual Hizballah members are also designated terrorists, as is the group's satellite television network, al-Manar.

Hezbollah is also banned -- in whole or in part -- in Canada, Australia and Great Britain.

For more on this subject, see PolicyWatch #958: Ban Hizballah in Europe.

Hotel Bombing in Baghdad and Update on Capture/Deaths of Zarqawi Associates

By Evan Kohlmann

Yesterday's devastating suicide bomb attack on the Al-Sadeer Hotel in Baghdad was followed by a flurry of communications by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaida faction in Iraq. The attack was hailed by at least five separate authentic statements from the group, including personal messages of congratulations from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi himself and the reputed head of Al-Qaida's Military Wing in Iraq, Abu Usaid al-Iraqi. Al-Qaida has also released a video recording of the suicide attack which I will publish online later this evening.

Separately, the Iraqi government has issued an intriguing new press release on the status of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's network inside the Sunni Triangle. The press release includes a superb chart featuring a photo of Abu Talha al-Saudi--one of Zarqawi's most senior lieutenants still at large, believed to be in charge of local military operations in the restive northern city of Mosul.

*UPDATE*: I have now posted online the two videos released this morning by Al-Qaida in Iraq, including the suicide bomb attack on the Al-Sadeer Hotel in Baghdad and a separate car bombing targeting a U.S. patrol near Fallujah. [Caution: the videos feature graphic scenes of violence]

Hearing on Russia-Syria Alliance: Syria's History of Terrorism

By Andrew Cochran

In the wake of the Hezbollah-driven pro-Syrian march in Lebanon this week, it was important that the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which is co-chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Chris Smith, quickly put together an outstanding hearing yesterday on the Russia-Syria alliance and the obvious connections between Syria and numerous terrorist groups. The hearing testimony (witnesses listed below, including Steven Emerson) and unofficial transcript now available on the Commission's website. Some of the most gripping testimony was provided by Entifadh K. Qanbar, a former Iraqi officer and now a spokesperson for the United Iraqi Alliance, about Syria's role in the Iraqi insurgency and Syria's long history of terrorist activity...

Miami Denaturalization Case Bodes Well for National Security

By Bill West

A report in the Miami Herald from March 8 notes a case that is a step closer to becoming a Federal legal precedent...wherein the issue of "Good Moral Character" (GMC) and lack thereof in the naturalization process is reinforced as a solid basis for revoking naturalization. Ironically, the concept and importance of Good Moral Character in recent immigration history has managed to become minimized. This case reverses that trend 180 degrees.

The case involves Lionel Jean-Baptiste, a Haitian-American who became a naturalized US citizen but was convicted of a drug crime after his naturalization for the offense that occurred before the naturalization. His citizenship was revoked based upon the US District Court finding in favor of the US Government, which contended that Jean-Baptiste was involved in criminal activity (drug trafficking) in the time before he became a US citizen and therefore was a person who lacked Good Moral Character and was ineligible for naturalization.

The Government�s case, which the District Court held and which the 11th Circuit just affirmed, was that Jean-Baptiste�s lack of GMC before his naturalization was sufficient grounds to strip him of US citizenship. Jean-Baptiste appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which just refused to hold a full �en banc� hearing in the case. Jean-Baptiste�s attorney now says he will appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Assuming the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case (my prediction) or it does and the Government prevails, it will be easier for the Government to proceed in similar cases wherein the naturalization applicant misrepresented or otherwise lacked GMC in the process and the USG discovers that fact after the naturalization occurs. This is a potentially very important factor in cases involving naturalized citizens who engaged in war crimes/human rights persecution, terrorism, terrorism support activities or other national security threat activities such as espionage - before they naturalized - and now the Government learns of those activities.

An interesting additional element in the 11th Circuit�s decision is the finding that a District Court has no discretion in not ordering the revocation of citizenship once it finds that naturalization was procured unlawfully. This is another potentially powerful legal tool, and should be additional incentive for Federal prosecutors to pursue such cases when the evidence is developed. And, it should be noted that once a naturalized citizen is stripped of their citizenship, they revert to their previous immigration status, which is usually that of a legal permanent resident alien. However, often the very same basis for naturalization revocation can be the basis for removal (deportation) proceedings once the person is again an alien. So, in these matters, the justification for the investigative and prosecution effort, especially in national security cases wherein perhaps other criminal charges are not viable, should be apparent.

« Close It

New Statements and Video from Al-Qaida in Iraq

By Evan Kohlmann

Al-Qaida's Committee in Mesopotamia--led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--has released a new statement on behalf of the group's military chief Abu Usaid al-Iraqi urging followers to "gather their swords" and "hit the necks" of "infidel leaders." Separately, the group has also issued a communiqu� explaining the recent release of photos of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and a video of a March 3 Al-Qaida suicide bomb attack on the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

Click to view video and communiques c/o Globalterroralert.com :
- Mar. 3 video of a suicide bombing attack on the Iraqi Interior Ministry
- Mar. 3 statement from the commander of Al-Qaida's military wing Abu Usaid al-Iraqi
- Mar. 7 update on the current status of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and recent photos published of him

Syria Tumult: Potential Boon for Terrorist Financing Investigators

By Andrew Cochran

The partial or complete withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, and the stress on their alliances in the region, should present a golden opportunity for counterterrorism investigators to see how Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas manage their finances. If those terrormasters think about their money like most humans, they're nervous and have started transferring accounts, liquidating hard assets into cash or commodities (diamonds?), and maybe shift their most knowledgeable financial experts to "safer" places. In the process, we could also discover more about their secret allies around the Middle East, Europe, and even in this country. I would also assume that the terrorists are destroying bank records as they go, trying to make the investigatory job tougher.

Spy Agencies Fear Some Applicants Are Terrorists

By Evan Kohlmann

I will be a guest on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" program on MSNBC at 8:30pm EST tonight to discuss an article published today in the L.A. Times discussing potential terrorist moles seeking to gain access to U.S. intelligence agencies.

"U.S. counterintelligence officials are increasingly concerned that Al Qaeda sympathizers or operatives may have tried to get jobs at the CIA and other U.S. agencies in an effort to spy on American counterterrorist efforts. So far, about 40 Americans who sought positions at U.S. intelligence agencies have been red-flagged and turned away for possible ties to terrorist groups, the officials said. Several such applicants have been detected at the CIA...."

PIJ Chief Caught on Tape Ordering Attack

By Bill West

A story just out in the Israel National News.com (and listed in today�s news column) reports that Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), since 1995, who is based in Damascus, Syria, was caught on tape ordering the recent PIJ terrorist bombing attack against the Stage Club in Tel Aviv. The news report further states that a transcript of the tape has been turned over to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Steven Emerson to Testify at Helsinki Commission Russia-Syria Hearing

By Andrew Cochran

The U.S. Helsinki Commission will hold a hearing on March 9, from 1 to 3 pm, in 226 Dirksen Senate Office building, on the Russian-Syrian connection and threats to democracy in the Middle East and the greater OSCE region. Helsinki Commission Chairman Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) will preside over the hearing, and Steven Emerson will testify. Other witnesses will include Dr. Walid Phares of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy; Farid N. Ghadry, President, Reform Party of Syria; Entifadh K. Qanbar, Special Envoy and Spokesperson, United Iraqi Alliance; and Ilan Berman, V.P. for Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council.

The U.N. Returns to Mushy Reporting

By Douglas Farah

The United Nations Monitoring Team, designed to support the U.N. Security Council's Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee has made public its second report. Unfortunately, it shows a marked return toward the vague generalities, endless qualification and toothlessness that characterizes so much of the U.N. (and U.S. government) reporting. It was not always like this. When the Monitoring Group was led by Michael Chandler, (and where our collegue Vic Comras did admirable work) the unit produced comprehensive, educational reports with valid case studies and sometimes-biting critiques of member nations. It also, for that brief time it was operational, had the audacity to name names, and take individual member states to task for such serious lapses as allowing specially designated individuals to move their money around at will, despite international freezing orders. That seems to have been the Group's undoing. After what turned out to be its last report, the U.N. Security Council, responding to member pressure, disbanded the Group and replaced it with a two-person Team. The difference is that the Team, no matter how well intentioned, has neither the resources nor the mandate to do its job. Not that the Group had the resources, but it did a great deal with very little. Now the cuts in resources and staff are so draconian as to render the Team reports virtually meaningless. It is a major loss, because the Group had access to a wide array of information and intelligence that the U.S. intelligence community and others do not routinely access.

There are a few nuggets tucked away in the report, but almost everything reported is so blindingly obvious even to the uninitiated that it is hard to get through. One thing of interest we find is that, since 9-11, no country has reported stopping anyone on the international travel ban list. This is a stunning indictment of the lack of effectiveness of that list. No one stopped even one person in 3 1/2 years. Wow! A whopping 30 percent of the world's nations have not bothered with the U.N. requirement to submit a series of reports on terrorist activities, a number that is surprising only because 70 percent have actually tried to do something. We learn al Qaeda may be interested in weapons of mass destruction and still has access to money. Shocking! It can all be found here. For the full blog go here.

This Week in Congress: Contributing Expert Testifies & List of All Hearings

By Andrew Cochran

Another busy week of terrorism-related hearings this week in the U.S. Congress. Contributing Expert Michael Cutler is testifying at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on March 9 on the potential reorganization of the Homeland Security Department, and at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on March 10 on the need for sufficient interior enforcement resources.

Here is the list of all terrorism-related hearings this week, including appropriations hearings.

Afghan Opium Production Continues to Rise

By Victor Comras

While the just issued State Department's annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report has attracted considerable press, particularly the parts dealing with Afghan Opium, the recently issued UN Survey of Opium Production in Afghanistan garnered less attention. This important 125 page report, prepared in November 2004 by the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime, in conjunction with Afghanistan's own Counter-Narcotics Directorate, indicates that: "Opium cultivation increased by two-thirds, reaching an unprecedented 131,000 hectures....Opium culitvation also spread to all 32 provinces -- making narcotics the main engine of economic growth and the strongest bond among previously quarrelsome populations. Valued at $2.8 billion, the opium economy is now equivalent to about 60% of Afghanistan's 2003 GDP ( 4.6 billion, if only licit activity is measured)." Some 356,000 Afghan families (some 2.3 million persons) were involved in Opium poppy cultivation in 2004 compared to 264,000 in 2003. UN Drugs and Crime Office Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa warns in his preface that: "With growing amounts of narco-money available to fund terrorism in Afghanistan and along well-known trails across neighboring countries, the international community must commit to commensurate initiatives to support the Afghan government's counter-narcotics drive." This should include (1) supporting alternative crop cultivation, (2) military operations against labs and traffickers' convoys, (3) increased anti-corruption initiatives directed within the Afghan police and military forces, and enhanced judicial assistance from investigation to administration of justice, prosecution and detention.

Terrorism: Words Do Mean Something

By Michael Kraft

By Michael B. Kraft

The issue of how the press should label terrorist attacks has been reopened by Daniel Okrent, the New York Times Public Editor, or ombudsman, in his March 6 �The War of Words" column. Mr. Okrent, to his credit, notes that �in some instances The Times� earnest effort to avoid bias can desiccate language and dilute meaning.� Although he does not use the words himself, he apparently is referring to the habit of some media � American as well as foreign-- to refer to Middle East terrorists as �militants,� �fighters," "commandoes," or �activists."

Aside from pussyfooting in an effort to appear politically correct and avoid offending readers in the Arab world, these phrases do a disservice to the thousands of union organizers and civil rights activists who worked hard for their cause without blowing up civilians. They dishonor the memory of irregular troops who blew up Nazi-controlled railway lines and harassed German troops without planting bombs in civilian markets.

The word-dodging reminds me of when I was a young deskman in the London bureau of United Press International, back in the days when it was a major news organization. We were warned against calling Angola and Mozambique �Portuguese �colonies� instead of �territories�� lest the Lisbon government fire off another protest and shut down the UPI service to the government-controlled press. We were also told not to call the Persian Gulf �the Persian Gulf� because Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states would object.

Okrent approvingly quotes a January memo by former New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Manager James Bennet, who as Okrent put it, �addressed the paper�s gingerly use of the word �terrorism.� �

As quoted by Okrent, the Bennet memo said �the calculated bombing of students in a university cafeteria or of families gathered in an ice cream parlor cries out to be called what it is. I wanted to avoid the political meaning that comes with �terrorism� but I couldn�t pretend that the word had no usage at all in plain English. He added that �not to use the term began to seem like a political act in itself.�

Okrent agreed, adding �while some Israelis and their supporters assert that any Palestinian holding a gun is a terrorist, there can be neither factual nor moral certainty that he is. But if the same man fires into a crowd of civilians, he has committed an act of terrori and he is a terrorist.�

One can take issue with the first part of Okrent�s comment. If a young person, say a Palestinian or Iraqi is spotted sneaking up on civilians homes or office buildings with a gun or an RPG and appears to be trying to get into position for an attack, the defenders do not have to let the attacker get in the first shots before deciding he is terrorist and opening fire in self defense.

Okrent also goes on to say that he has a �simple� definition of terrorism: �An act of political violence committed against purely civilian targets is terrorism, attacks on military targets are not�. He says the October attempt to sink the US destroyer the USS Cole in Yemen waters that killed 18 sailors therefore was not an act of terrorism.

Unfortunately even this otherwise good definition is too simple. The key word is non-combatant. The State Department definition used in the law requiring the annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report refers to politically motivated attacks perpetrated against �non-combatants� for a reason. Attacks against military installations during a time of peace or personnel who are not in a combat situation are also acts of terrorism

The Cole was not engaged in military operations when it made a port of call in Yemen. Attacks on military bases during times of peace, such as those attempted by German Red Army Faction terrorists in the 1980�s, or assassinations of military attaches assigned to an embassy (Greece) or soldiers/and police recruits waiting for a bus or flying home on leave (Israel, Iraq, 1985 TWA 847 hijacking) off duty Marine Embassy Guards sitting at a sidewalk caf� (El Salvador, 1985) or on a peacekeeping mission (US Marines in Lebanon barracks) should be and are considered acts of terrorism because the victims were noncombatants.

The efforts over the years to precisely define terrorism are not very fruitful. Thousands of hours have been spent on the subject in the United Nations and countless conferences. By one tally there are about 110 definitions floating about. In some cases, the precise definition may matter only for law enforcement purposes.

However the tendency by some elements of the media to completely shy aware from the word terrorism does not help public understanding of the attacks. Indeed, it has the effect of excusing the attacks by trying to put a gloss over what amounts to murder �as if it is okay to murder civilians in a market place or bus because the murderers were �militants.�

Mr. Okrant has done a service by taking on the issue. Other media please copy.

-0-

-- The writer is a former journalist and State Department Counterterrorism official.

« Close It

New U.S. State Department Narcotics Report

By Andrew Cochran

Wire service stories over the weekend are referring to a new State Department report on drug production in Afghanistan and continuing money laundering through numerous countries, including the U.S. That report is the annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which can be found in two parts here. I'll post the volume on money laundering and financial crimes in the Counterterrorism Library later today.

Congressional Testimony & Two Library Additions

By Andrew Cochran

Here is the testimony of Lorenzo Vidino, Deputy Director of Steven Emerson's Investigative Project and a contributor to this blog, before a U.S. House subcommittee hearing on March 3 on terrorism in Algeria. Here is the statement by the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Ed Royce, and here is a link to the other testimony. I added two links to the Counterterrorism Library on the left sidebar: a comprehensive history of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and a summary of the little-known but extremist-oriented Tablighi Jamaat.

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY MINISTER OF ECONOMY TIED TO HAMAS?

By Matthew Levitt

On February 24, 2005, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) approved the new cabinet proposed by Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei. Often described as technocratic and progressive, the cabinet is widely seen as fitting the Bush administration's requirement of being "untainted by terror." Yet, one cabinet appointment gives reason for concern: the new minister of economy, Mazen Sunuqrut, has close, longstanding ties to Hamas.

Palestinian, Israeli, and U.S. intelligence agencies have all linked Sunuqrut to Hamas, primarily through a family company in which he is part owner and a bank whose board of directors he led. According to an undated Palestinian General Intelligence report seized by Israeli forces in 2002, Palestinian security officials determined that a Hamas charity committee laundered funds raised abroad through local banks, money changers, and businesses with ties to Hamas. One of two companies highlighted in the report was the so-called "Sunuqrut company" (a reference to Sunuqrut Global Group), which the report described as "among the most important companies the [Ramallah/al-Bireh Zakat] Committee works with." According to Israeli authorities, "Sunuqrut is a company one of whose owners, Mazen Sunuqrut, is a Hamas activist."

The full article is available here.

Algerian GSPC Renounces Former Leader, Peace Overtures by Algerian Government

By Evan Kohlmann

The Algerian Salafist Group for Prayer and Combat (GSPC)--a regional Al-Qaida affiliate group active in North Africa--has disavowed their former top commander Hassan Hattab (a.k.a. Abu Hamza) after he surrendered to the Algerian government in exchange for limited amnesty. According to a recent statement released by the group, Hattab has been estranged from the GSPC since at least 2003 and his recent actions are considered "a betrayal of Allah, his messenger, the path of jihad, and the blood of the martyrs... we will continue our jihad. It will be either victory or martyrdom.�

Could the surrender of the former GSPC leader possibly herald the end of the longstanding Algerian jihad? Unfortunately, the answer is probably not. As I noted in a recent article published in Asia Times, "it is significant that Hassan Hattab has surrendered [apparently] because he was not in favor of using international terrorism as a prime instrument of policy. Those who have succeeded him in the GSPC harbor no such reservations. You might say that Hattab's downfall may ironically serve to remove a previous political roadblock to GSPC-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe."

Whats Really Happening to Saudi Charities?

By Victor Comras

Reviewing some past research, I re-discovered a very reveiling recent news account published by Arab News regarding Saudi actions against charities. This article deserves special attention! Arab News, which is published simultaneously in Jeddah, Riyadh and Dhahran, is one of the Middle East's leading English language newspapers. The story was published January 1, 2005 and was entitled "KINGDOM HAS NO PLANS TO CLOSE CHARITIES." According to the account, Saudi Minister of Islamic Affairs, Saleh ibn Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, told an audience in Jeddah that al Haramain was closed under US pressure and not because the Saudi government had any "suspicions surrounding its activities." It was closed, he said "to serve the general interest." The ministry, he said, was not aware of any misconduct from the Saudi charity and had not received any documented information to this effect from any side. He re-assured the audience that the Saudi government had no plans to act against any further charities, or to take any additional action against al Haramain employees. They would be free, he said, to find employment in other charities. In the meantime, al Haramain international operations and assets, he said, would be folded into a new body named the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Works Abroad. The full text of the article is included below:

Kingdom Has No Plans to Close Down Charities
Abdul Wahab Bashir, Arab News

JEDDAH, 1 January 2005 � Saudi Arabia has no plans to shut down any local charities, after Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation which had its offices closed down earlier in the year, a government minister has said.

The foundation has been accused by the United States of funding terrorism among several charity bodies in various parts of the world.

Minister of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Dawa and Guidance, Saleh ibn Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, said there are no plans for the closure of any charity and that no imams (prayer leaders) have been sacked this year for having ties with terror cells or helping terrorists.

Speaking in Jeddah after inaugurating a ministry program for educating Haj and Umrah pilgrims, Al-Sheikh said the closure of Al-Haramain Foundation was not because of any suspicions surrounding its activities, but the decision was intended to serve the general interest.

The ministry, he said, has not reported any misconduct from the part of the charity and did not receive any documented information to this effect from any side.

In February 2004 the Ministry of Islamic Affairs dissolved Al-Haramain Foundation and asked its management to close its doors and dismiss its personnel, who at one point numbered 5,000, most of them volunteers, working to assist the poor all over the world.

Al-Haramain figured among a number of Saudi charities accused by Washington of financing terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The foundation and other private groups that have been dissolved and their international operations and assets folded into a new body has been named the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad.

The minister said the commission would be very active in charity outside the Kingdom. It would be subject to strict financial legal oversight, and will operate according to clear policies to ensure that charitable funds intended to help the needy are not misused.

Al-Haramain was said to have received between $45 and $50 million each year in donations and has spent some $300 million on humanitarian work overseas.

Minister of Social Affairs Dr. Ali Al-Namla said the foundation ex-employees could still work with local charity bodies in the Kingdom, denying reports of a ban on the employees to seek work with other charity societies.

Al-Sheikh said charity activity is not connected to individuals or organizations but an ongoing Islamic work that is closely related to religion.

Dhaifullah Al-Balawi, supervisor of charity organizations at the Ministry of Social Affairs, also denied a decision has been issued banning the ex-employees from working with local charity bodies.

Al-Sheikh said no imam or prayer leader has been sacked this year in connection with the terror cells or for having helped shelter terrorists. No imam in any mosque has ever been reported over the past year to have any such connection, he added.

The Kingdom fired 44 Friday preachers, 160 imams and 149 muazzins (prayer callers) for incompetence during the first half of 2004.

Another 1,357 religious officials were suspended from their duties and ordered them to undergo training. The suspensions included 517 imams, 90 Friday preachers and 750 muazzins.

They have been asked to undergo Islamic theological training to be able to work more efficiently at mosques as part of a ministry program to boost performance of mosque employees.

« Close It

Congressional Hezbollah Bill and Hearing on Algerian Terrorism

By Andrew Cochran

The House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, chaired by Rep. Ed Royce, will meet at 2:00 pm on Thursday, March 3, to discuss and then pass a bill urging the European Union to add Hezbollah to the EU's list of terrorist organizations. To date, the EU has resisted doing so, which diminishes its credibillity in the face of repeated terrorist attacks by Hezbollah. Following the vote on the bill, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on Algeria's struggle against terrorism. Lorenzo Vidino, deputy director of Steven Emerson's Investigative Project and a contributor to this blog, will testify at that hearing.

Kudos from Congress & Our Thanks

By Andrew Cochran

We're coming up on our two-month anniversary. We appreciate the many complimentary e-mails we receive from around the world, but one received this morning was most encouraging, and testifies to the incisive insights provided by the Contributing Experts. I started this blog, in part, as a one-stop gateway to counterterrorism resources for the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch. A senior counsel to one of the most important Congressmen on counterterrorism issues wrote me this morning, saying, "I have to take a moment to tell you that your blog is such an incredibly valuable tool to us. I have referred several other colleagues to the site, including CRS (Congressional Research Service) analysts. Thanks for all your hard work! What did we ever do before you created it?!" Thanks very much to that counsel and to all of our readers, and we hope to continue to serve you well.

Al-Qaida in Iraq Claims Bloody Suicide Bomb Attack in Hillah

By Evan Kohlmann

Al-Qaida's Jihad Commitee in Iraq--led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--has finally taken credit for Monday's bloody suicide bomb attack in Hillah on a registration center for Iraqi police and national guard recruits that killed over 115 people.

Click to view English translation c/o Globalterroralert.com...

Convicted Terrorists Send Advice to Brethren From Within U.S. Prisons

By Evan Kohlmann

NBC News has done an intriguing story on how, "from inside America�s most secure prisons, 1993 World Trade Center bomber Mohamed Salameh wrote letters to a Spanish terror cell and to Arabic newspapers praising Osama bin Laden and suicide bombers, saying, 'Anyone who rises up against American arrogance and tyranny and causes the Americans fear and trembling also are heroes.'� Click to view Part I, Part II

In my book, Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe, I described how--despite the restrictions imposed on his communications--Shaykh Omar Abdel Rahman (ideological mentor to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers) was likewise able to secretly contact his followers in August 1998 from within his prison cell and ordered them to carry out acts of violence against Americans...

Top Zarqawi Henchman Identified in New Statement from Al-Qaida in Iraq

By Evan Kohlmann

Al-Qaida's Jihad Committee in Mesopotamia--led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--has issued a new statement signed by "Abu Abdelrahman al-Iraqi", identified as Zarqawi's "Deputy Commander" in Iraq. In his communique, Abu Abdelrahman declares, "May Allah bless you, O� soldiers of Allah and lions of al-Tawheed wherever you are and in whatever country you are fighting the enemies of Allah� O� nation of Islam, prepare yourself for good tidings... We ask every mujahid to stay firm in his jihad and his religion and never to accept peace or a truce because weakness has spread throughout the nations of the infidels and good tidings of victory are visible on the horizon... O� Allah, defeat America and its allies and make them and their possessions into a reward for the Muslims. O� Allah, demolish America and shake its foundations� O� Allah of heaven, earth, and the seas, destroy America and make its power into a reward for the Muslims. Cast whatever power they had into the sea and let it drown."

Click to view English translation c/o Globalterroralert.com