Iraq Holding Two US Civilians Found in Militant Stronghold

Here's something we hope to learn more about in the coming days - Al Jazeerah is reporting that the Iraqi Army is holding two Americans it found in one of Mosul's most radical neighborhoods. Details are sketchy, but in this video, reporter Josh Rushing says the two indicated they had previously been with Hizballah. Passports indicate they'd also been in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He also notes reports that three dozen American ex-cons are believed to have made their way to Yemen, where it is feared they have undergone training for terrorist attacks.

Regulating the "Fatwa Industry"

The Jerusalem Post recently reported on the Saudi government's call to regulate "chaotic fatwas," a move being hailed by the authorities as important in challenging extremism. The plan is currently being discussed by members of the Higher Council of Religious Scholars, and could be implemented as early as next month.

The effort strongly resembles last January's decision during the International Conference of Fatwas, held at the headquarters of the Muslim World League in Mecca. The Saudis hope to monopolize the "fatwa industry" and drown out local extremists, should they challenge sanctioned religious opinions.

The International Conference of Fatwas 2009 decision was based on a spate of strange and extreme rulings, including calls to murder Mickey Mouse, banning yoga, and permitting the killing of corrupting satellite television broadcasters. The 2009 move did little to control the rampant issuing of religious rulings from unauthorized sources, however, because it lacked the bite of government sanctioning for offenders. The proliferation of the Internet blogs, and chat rooms also rendered the move largely ineffective. Even if the authorities control the greater body of scholars, they have little authority over the means of transmission and failed states harboring terrorists.

The Saudi decision faces the same challenges and more. Dissident Saudi religious leaders and self-appointed scholars oppose the move as contrary to the nature of Islam, which permits a plurality of opinions from which the devout can choose. They further argue that scholars may be designated to the new, government-sanctioned body for reasons other than scholarship and dedication to traditional sources.

Such calls for freedom of opinion are cynical uses of plurality, for which extremists have no respect. Within the kingdom, terrorists adamantly oppose rulings with which they disagree. Abroad, Wahhabi Islam has uprooted native forms of Islam from places as far and wide as Albania, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Leading Shi'ite and Sunni authorities have routinely attempted a one-up-manship of inciteful rulings on issues ranging from Palestine to internal peace between the groups.

A perfect example is leading Sunni scholar and Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's response to Shi'ites about Palestine. To respond to accusations that he was soft on "resistance," Al-Qaradawi replied that he was the "Mufti of martyrdom operations" and has issued multiple fatwas supporting violence.

The program's chances for success cannot be known. It is hopeful, however, to see the Saudis openly confront extremism. Indeed, Arab reformists have also argued that the Saudis need to confront radicalization, even through internal censorship of extremists, in combination with their program of rehabilitating former radicals. If done correctly, with the proper balance of moderation and legitimacy, the Saudis could finally bring the fight to the terrorists.

British Supreme Court Strikes Down Terror Finance Laws

In the first case to be heard by the newly established Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, two of the nation's most effective counter-terrorist financing policies were unanimously struck down. In an 89-page opinion issued Wednesday, the court was especially critical of the laws describing them as "oppressive," and "draconian."

As we previously reported, at issue in the case, A v. Her Majesty's Treasury was the Terrorism Order of 2006 and the Al Qaida and Taliban Order of 2006, two statutes which evolved from UN Security Council resolutions requiring member states to freeze the assets of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and their ilk. Rather than ask Parliament to pass laws to comply with the resolutions, the Crown in the UK implemented the laws unilaterally.

The petitioners in the case, six individuals whose assets were frozen because of their connections to al Qaida, challenged the law arguing that it was passed without consulting Parliament and deprived them of their property without due process of law. In issuing its opinion, the Court agreed, explaining that "access to a court to protect one's rights is the foundation of the rule of law."

In addition to the lack of consultation with Parliament, the Court seemed particularly concerned with the far-reaching and serious effect of asset freezing measures. As the Court explained, the freezing measures:

"which are not subject to any time limit, place very severe limitations on the ability of persons who have been designated to deal with their property. They have an extremely grave effect upon their freedom of movement, their liberty and private and family lives, and those of their families and their associates."

While the court couched its decision as a victory for separation of powers and due process rights in the United Kingdom, its ruling is a blow to international efforts to pursue terrorist financiers.

U.S. Congressmen Call Upon Israel to Abandon Effective Counter-Terrorism Policy

More than 50 members of the United States Congress affixed their signatures to a letter last week demanding that President Obama do more to pressure Israel to lift security restrictions imposed on the Gaza Strip in 2006. According to the letter:

"The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East peace efforts."

Unsurprisingly, a collection of Islamic organizations have praised the news. While groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the American Task Force on Palestine, and American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights were simply repeating their frequently heard anti-Israeli message, members of Congress should know better.

The "blockade" referenced in the letter, limiting the movement of people, weapons, and supplies to the Gaza Strip, was put in place as a result of the election of Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Now, ignoring the effectiveness of these measures, a bi-partisan coalition from Congress has come out criticizing Israel's attempts to ensure the safety of its citizens.

Despite recognizing the need for Israel to engage in self-defense "out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups," the authors of the letter take issue with the methods that both the Israeli and Egyptian governments have utilized.

While it may be true that the availability of humanitarian assistance has been hampered as a result of the security restrictions, the benefits of such measures vastly outweigh any costs. For instance, partly as a result of the restrictions imposed on Gaza, there was not a single suicide bombing within Israel during all of 2009. Additionally, the number of rocket attacks emanating from the Gaza Strip has declined by approximately 75% since the imposition of the blockade. In asking for renewed availability of construction materials and fuel, the Congressmen ignore the fact that these supplies are frequently used in the construction of weapons, not houses.

Despite the efficacy of the security measures, some members of Congress remain critical. In calling for the lifting of these restrictions to relieve the suffering of Palestinian people, they ignore critical facts. While the Palestinian people may be suffering, that pain can be attributed to the repressive terrorist regime running the Gaza Strip. Rather than support the Palestinian people, the easing of these security procedures would have the effect of propping up the Hamas government rather than aiding the Palestinian people it claims to represent.

Their message might be better targeted at Hamas leaders, calling on them to abandon their obsession with violence and confrontation at the expense of their own people's well being.

HAMAS reaffirms ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

If there was any doubt about the current state of the relationship between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, a recent report published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm makes the issue crystal clear.

In the report made public on January 22^nd, authors Fathia al Dakhakhani and Tariq Salah illuminated the extent of the bond between the Brotherhood and Hamas, noting that "the leader of the de facto Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh, proffered allegiance to the new Guide of the Brotherhood, Doctor Mohamed Badei…" What is lost in translation, however, is the significance of this pledge of allegiance, or bay'ah in its original Arabic.

Unlike loose displays of support so evident in Western culture – where not much is expected or at stake – the concept of bay'ah means much more. As one U.S.-based Muslim cleric has explained here, giving bay'ah is theologically demanded of all Muslims; it represents a declaration of who is the proper leader of Islam. Once a commitment is made, it is difficult to withdraw, and doing so would have serious implications for both the reputation of the individual or group who received the pledge and that individual or entity making it. Thus, a declaration of bay'ah requires full support and backing.

So what could this suggest for the future? Looking to other examples in which bay'ah has been declared – most notably that of former Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden – it could portend a new era of open cooperation between parent and offspring. This move could be a significant departure from the previous Brotherhood strategy of denying its relationship with the militant Palestinian group, as evidenced in this August 2009 post by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report.

Aside from its close ties to HAMAS, the Egypt-based Brotherhood has had close historical ties with numerous other Islamist groups both around the world and in the United States. Evidence made public during the 2007-08 trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) made clear the extent to which the Brotherhood has played a role in shaping many of the so-called "mainstream" U.S. Muslim organizations. Badei's predecessor, former Brotherhood General Guide Mohammed Mahdi Akef, publically acknowledges his role in helping to form one of these organizations, the Muslim American Society (MAS).

UPDATE: The "Last Tactical Mile"--Senate Investigates Intelligence Failures

Original Post can be found here.

This week, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate convened panels to continue their respective reviews of the failed Christmas day airline bombing attack in Detroit. The discussion and the findings echoed last week's Senate hearing - the near success of the attack represented a systematic failure to analyze, connect, and act upon gathered intelligence.

In both hearings, witnesses seemed reluctant to speak in detail, but did acknowledge no one has been disciplined as a result of the missed connections that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board the flight from Amsterdam despite a series of red flags.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs invited Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, who led the 9/11 Commission. Before critiquing the government's preparedness for the Christmas Day bomb plot, they began by identifying the enemy. As they explained in their prepared remarks:

"The threat from al Qaida and radical Islam remains strong…Al Qaida's core is still active, individuals are still being radicalized in Western countries and motivated to commit violence, and homegrown lone actors are still a risk."

Having set the stage, Hamilton and Kean explained that the federal government must move forward on both tactical and analytical improvements to the U.S. counterterrorism strategy.

While the failed attack served as a reminder for why the government first established the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counter Terrorism Center, it was also a warning that more must be done with the collected intelligence. As they explained:

"the greatest single challenge that arises from this incident in our view is the urgent need to strengthen the analytic process."

Part of acting upon that intelligence, as the men detailed, will be continuing to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. While the U.S. is currently focused on the threat posed by Yemen, al Qaida and their ilk are also increasing their presence in Pakistan, Algeria, the Sahel, and Somalia.

Wednesday's hearing in front of the House Committee on Homeland Security provided some fresh perspective on the attack and the efforts to combat future attacks. Although Michael E. Leiter mostly reiterated his testimony from last week's Senate hearing, members of the House also heard from the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, each who provided unique insight into the failures that must be cured.

Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Jane Holl Lute identified a number of areas where the agency is working to ensure that similar attacks are unsuccessful including: (i) the deployment of new technology for identifying rudimentary explosives; (ii) bolstering aviation law enforcement; and (iii) increasing cooperation with international partners; and (iv) re-evaluating the criteria and processes used to create watchlists, a goal that requires the cooperation of among others, the State Department.

Discussing the types of travel restrictions that Lute alluded to, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy provided insight into the State Department's efforts. As Kennedy explained, since 9/11, the State Department has:

"developed and implemented intensive screening processes requiring personal interviews, employing analytic interview techniques, incorporating multiple biometric checks, all built around a sophisticated global information technology network."

Despite these efforts, Kennedy recognized that more must be done. Consequently, State is continuing to work on reviewing visa issuance and revocation criteria.

As Ms. Lute explained, despite the continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, DHS and its partners remain

"determined to thwart those plans and disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorist networks by employing multiple layers of defense that work in concert with one another to secure our country."

These hearings provided an opportunity to take a step back and review our nation's security apparatus—to determine what is and is not working. Hopefully law enforcement and the intelligence community will make the appropriate changes to prevent future attacks.

U.S. Military, Intelligence Aid Yemen in Targeting Al Qaeda

U.S. military and intelligence agencies are heavily involved in joint operations with Yemeni troops that have killed six of 15 top leaders of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula since mid-December.

The operations, approved by President Obama, involve several dozen troops from the U.S. military's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which focuses on killing or capturing suspected terrorists. Although the American advisers do not participate in raids inside Yemen, they provide weapons and munitions, provide weapons and munitions and help develop tactics.

"Highly sensitive intelligence is being shared with the Yemeni forces, including electronic and video surveillance, as well as three-dimensional terrain maps and detailed analysis of the al-Qaeda network," the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

The operations included a December 24 airstrike that targeted Anwar Al-Awlaki, who military officials said is on a shortlist of American citizens the JSOC seeks to kill or capture. Awlaki told Al Jazeerah that he gave Nidal Malik Hasan his blessing to carry out the Fort Hood massacre November 5. Awlaki also had direct contact with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to carry out a suicide attack on a trans-Atlantic flight Christmas Day.

There are questions about how vigorous the U.S. government has been in its efforts to target Awlaki. The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that some U.S. intelligence officials believe they could have used a Predator drone strike to kill Awlaki but held back because he is an American.

NYT: Zazi Relative May be Cooperating

Months after Najibullah Zazi's arrest for planning to bomb multiple locations in New York City using improvised explosive devices, his uncle Naqib Jaji is being held under a sealed indictment and may be cooperating with federal prosecutors. This, according to a report by the New York Times on Wednesday.

Back in September 2009, Zazi was indicted for conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction, a felony punishable by the death penalty. Officials believed he was planning a series of imminent bombing attacks in New York that could have been the worst terrorist attacks in America since 9/11.

Although arrested with a number of other co-conspirators, information relating to the investigation and prosecution has remained limited. Prosecutors have indicated that they are likely to bring additional charges in the coming months, and the cooperation of Jaji may be a first step in that path.

Saudi Bank Refuses to Cooperate in U.S. Investigation into Terrorist Financiers

One of the largest banks in Saudi Arabia is refusing to assist the United States in its investigation of an organization believed to have been supporting a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. The case al Rajhi Banking and Investment v. Holder, is an offshoot of the pending criminal prosecution of Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, in Oregon.

Al Rajhi Bank, a Riyadh-based financial institution was served with a subpoena back in July, 2009. Pursuant to the subpoena, the Justice Department sought all records relating to a March 2000 deposit of $151,000 in checks by the now defunct al Haramain Islamic Foundation (al Haramain).

Al Haramain is long thought to have provided material support to a number of designated terrorist organizations. Following an extensive investigation, the organization itself was designated by the U.S. Treasury in 2008 for its financial and logistical support of al Qaida and related terrorist organizations. Even before that designation, however, the group was under suspicion.

Al Haramain was indicted on February 17, 2005 for a variety of charges related to fraud and tax evasion. In summary, the government alleges that al Haramain received a "donation" of $151,000, that the money was then funneled out of the United States and into accounts held at al Rajhi Bank, and finally, that the money was provided to Chechen rebels—all without declaring or paying taxes for the funds.

Upon receiving the subpoena, al Rajhi Bank refused to comply. The bank argued that to do so would not only violate Saudi law, but that the subpoena was issued without resort to the proper diplomatic channels. In response, the Justice Department explained that it had made every effort to seek a good faith resolution of the impasse, but failure to cooperate would result in the bank being designated a "primary money laundering concern" under another provision of the USA Patriot Act. This step would have the effect of preventing al Rajhi Bank from maintaining its correspondent bank accounts in the United States. Such a move would be particularly debilitating to al Rajhi because, while the bank does not have any U.S. offices or branches, it does maintain correspondent accounts with several U.S. banks including JP Morgan Chase, Wachovia, and Deutsche Bank.

In response to this apparent stalemate, the bank has taken the unusual step of challenging the subpoena and the government's subsequent threat to designate al Rajhi under the Patriot Act. The Bank begins by arguing that the subpoena is "unconstitutional" and that the threat of designation "permits the government to punish noncompliance by depriving the [foreign bank] of valuable correspondent relationships with U.S. banks."

What the bank fails to mention is that Saudi Arabia is a party to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, a treaty that requires parties to cooperate in investigations into terrorist financing. While Saudi Arabia and one of its largest banks may wish to continue hiding behind technical defenses, they should, pursuant to their international treaty obligations, provide the U.S. Department of Justice with the evidence needed to prosecute an organization directly linked to al Qaida and other terrorist groups.

Federal Court Dismisses Suit Against Hizballah's Alleged Bank

A federal court in Manhattan dismissed a suit earlier this month that was brought by victims of Hizballah terrorist attacks. The case, Tamam v. Fransabank Sal, is the most recent in a line of civil suits against terrorist supporters, and its dismissal dealt a blow to holding terrorist financiers liable.

The suit, brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, named several Lebanese banks for their support of Hizballah, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. According to the complaint, the financial institutions provided Hizballah with:

"regular, systematic, and unfettered access to U.S. currency, thus enabling Hizbullah to rapidly access funds to purchase missiles and other weapons."

Without addressing the merits of the case - for instance, whether or not the banks were in fact holding accounts open for Hizballah, and whether or not those activities were subject to liability - the court dismissed the case on a technicality.

As the court explained, there was a "lack of personal jurisdiction," preventing the court from exercising judicial authority over the foreign banks. Although personal jurisdiction traditionally exists where a party "transacts any business within the state," the court refused to find defendants' correspondent bank accounts to be sufficient. The plaintiffs have until February 5 to amend their complaint and allege facts that would sufficiently support jurisdiction over the parties.

Or, they could choose to take the issue to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If the ruling stands, the public policy in favor of destroying the terrorists' support network has been dealt a setback.

There is a long history of holding banks liable for providing financial services to designated foreign terrorist groups. While these suits have traditionally been brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act, cases such as the instant one are testing the limits for destroying the terrorists financial support structure.

Newer Postings   |   Older Postings