Tuesday December 19, 2006
A Reminder of the Importance of Good Journalism in Times of Fear
As a tribute to my friend Dana Priest at the Washington Post and the countless others who have worked so hard this year to give us exceptional journalism in an time of fear and official waffling (at best) and prevarication (at worst, and more often), I reproduce below an editorial by William Allen White in the Emporia Gazette, July 27, 1922. It says it all, except for the arcane sexism that was the language of the day. The more things change, unfortunately, the more we need to remember this wisdom from a patriot and giant of his age, and those like Dana and others who follow his path in difficult tiimes. Free expression and providing the public with accurate and timely information has probably never been more vital, nor more difficult than in these days of prosecutors demanding testimony, editors being called to meet the president to hear protests of stories, and outraged howls from conservatives or liberals who would rather see their agendas pushed than read the dispassionate discourse that makes for fine journalism.
To An Anxious Friend
You tell me that law is above freedom of utterance. And I reply that you can have no wise laws nor free enforcement of wise laws unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people-and, alas, their folly with it. But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison and the wisdom will survive. That is the history of the race. It is proof of man's kinship to God.
You say freedom of utterance is not for time of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in times of stress is freedom of utterance in danger. No one questions it in calm days, because it is not needed. And the reverse is true also; only when free utterance is suprressed is it needed, and when it is needed it is most vital to justice.
Peace is good. But if you are interested in peace through force and without free discussion-that is to say, free utterance decently and in order-your interest in justice is slight. And peace without justice is tyranny, no matter how you may sugar coat it with expediency.
The state today is in more danger from suppression than from violence, because, in the end, supression leads to violence. Violence, indeed, is the child of suppression. Whoever pleads for justice helps keep the peace; and who tramples upon the plea for justice temperately made in the name of peace only outrages peace and kills something fine in the heart of man which God put there when we got our manhood. When that is killed, brute meets brute on each side of the line.
So, dear friend, put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this state will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only men can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold-by voice, by post card, by letter or by press. Reason has never failed men. Only force and repression have made the wrecks in the world.
Happy New Year.
To An Anxious Friend
You tell me that law is above freedom of utterance. And I reply that you can have no wise laws nor free enforcement of wise laws unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people-and, alas, their folly with it. But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison and the wisdom will survive. That is the history of the race. It is proof of man's kinship to God.
You say freedom of utterance is not for time of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in times of stress is freedom of utterance in danger. No one questions it in calm days, because it is not needed. And the reverse is true also; only when free utterance is suprressed is it needed, and when it is needed it is most vital to justice.
Peace is good. But if you are interested in peace through force and without free discussion-that is to say, free utterance decently and in order-your interest in justice is slight. And peace without justice is tyranny, no matter how you may sugar coat it with expediency.
The state today is in more danger from suppression than from violence, because, in the end, supression leads to violence. Violence, indeed, is the child of suppression. Whoever pleads for justice helps keep the peace; and who tramples upon the plea for justice temperately made in the name of peace only outrages peace and kills something fine in the heart of man which God put there when we got our manhood. When that is killed, brute meets brute on each side of the line.
So, dear friend, put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this state will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only men can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold-by voice, by post card, by letter or by press. Reason has never failed men. Only force and repression have made the wrecks in the world.
Happy New Year.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday December 19, 2006
Why Aircraft Matter to Terrorists and Criminal Groups
One of the most overlooked elements in combatting terrorism, organize crime and non-state armed groups is the vital role that aircraft play. An AFP story on the use of aircraft by the FARC, AUC and drug traffickers in Colombia illustrate this point. Without aircraft, it would be impossible for these groups to arm themselves and function as they do. The same is true for the wars that have torn apart sub-Saharan Africa, as well as Sudan and elsewhere. If weapons are the lifeblood of these groups, the aircraft are the arteries through which the blood flows.
That is what makes it so dangerous to patronize people like Viktor Bout and allow his operations to stay in businesss. He may be useful for some things the intelligence communities and militaries of the world increasingly want, as wars and armies-even their core functions-become more privatized. But his planes are also the lifeline of groups, from the Taliban to the FARC and many groups in between, that make the world a more dangerous and less secure place. That is why Peter Hain, the senior British official who chased Bout for years was right when he dubbed Bout "the Merchant of Death." That is what is aircraft routinely carry.
Bout did not rise to prominence because of access to weapons--those connections are relatively easy to come by. He rose to prominence because he has a air fleet bigger than those of many countries, and is willing to rent them to the highest bidder.
So far the United States, its allies and the intenational bodies that regulate aircraft registries have done little to make it more difficult for the Bout's of the world to operate. In many countries of Africa aircraft can be registered online, for a nominal fee, with no inspection at all. Aircraft can and do change registrations as often as some people change underwear. The revolving door makes it hard to keep up without a concerted effort.
The good news is that aircraft are much easier to track than many other vehicles. Each one has to maintain maintenance records, radio records, insurance records etc. That is why it is possible to think about crippling Bout, the FARC and others by going after their aircraft. What is lacking is any notion that it is, in fact necessary, relatively inexpensive and the political will.
That is what makes it so dangerous to patronize people like Viktor Bout and allow his operations to stay in businesss. He may be useful for some things the intelligence communities and militaries of the world increasingly want, as wars and armies-even their core functions-become more privatized. But his planes are also the lifeline of groups, from the Taliban to the FARC and many groups in between, that make the world a more dangerous and less secure place. That is why Peter Hain, the senior British official who chased Bout for years was right when he dubbed Bout "the Merchant of Death." That is what is aircraft routinely carry.
Bout did not rise to prominence because of access to weapons--those connections are relatively easy to come by. He rose to prominence because he has a air fleet bigger than those of many countries, and is willing to rent them to the highest bidder.
So far the United States, its allies and the intenational bodies that regulate aircraft registries have done little to make it more difficult for the Bout's of the world to operate. In many countries of Africa aircraft can be registered online, for a nominal fee, with no inspection at all. Aircraft can and do change registrations as often as some people change underwear. The revolving door makes it hard to keep up without a concerted effort.
The good news is that aircraft are much easier to track than many other vehicles. Each one has to maintain maintenance records, radio records, insurance records etc. That is why it is possible to think about crippling Bout, the FARC and others by going after their aircraft. What is lacking is any notion that it is, in fact necessary, relatively inexpensive and the political will.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday December 19, 2006
Important Time Lost in the 4 Years Since 9-11
The Washington Post carries an important reminder of how much remains to be done in four years after 9-11. The faltering beginnings of Homeland Security, the inability to create a genuine international coaltion to seriously hurt the main group of financial backers for the radical Islamic groups, and the creation of a Salafist-wahhabi training ground in Iraq are only some of the issues that are festering as the year ends.
On the terror financing front, the lack of action by Saudi and European officials to seriously hamper known terrorist financiers is the most troublesome issue, to me. Also troubling is the ongoing lack of serious, sustained efforts on attacking the multiple holes in the international arena that allow the flow of cash to continue, relatively unabated, in different forms.
The vast offshore network of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially untouched and understood only in its vaguest outlines. The system of overlapping bank ownerships ficticious front companies that have allowed this offshore maze to thrive and hide money to avoid taxes, fund criminal activities and/or support terrorism around the globe is vital to al Qaeda and its offshoots. Yet the old paradigm prevails, where offshore systems are unstudied, unregulated and free for multiple types of abuse.
To me, the bottom line remains the same. The law enforcement and intelligence communities still rely on regulation and the hopes of catching terrorist financial activity when it intersects with the formal financial structure. But that is often avoided, and the intersections are few and far between. On taking action against designated individuals, diplomatic nicities trump the hard realities that Saudi Arabia and other nations on the Arab Peninsula have done almost nothing except on paper to halt the flow of money and those individuals remain active.
The UAE has the added onus of being the center of operations for the illicit flights of Viktor Bout and his empire. Even though the UN has now taken steps that allow countries to step up enforcement action on Bout, the UAE has not lifted a finger to find or halt is now-banned flights.
All in all, it has been a year of very modest progress and few real steps in finding and plugging the holes in the financial system that are a lifeline to those who want to destroy us.
On the terror financing front, the lack of action by Saudi and European officials to seriously hamper known terrorist financiers is the most troublesome issue, to me. Also troubling is the ongoing lack of serious, sustained efforts on attacking the multiple holes in the international arena that allow the flow of cash to continue, relatively unabated, in different forms.
The vast offshore network of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially untouched and understood only in its vaguest outlines. The system of overlapping bank ownerships ficticious front companies that have allowed this offshore maze to thrive and hide money to avoid taxes, fund criminal activities and/or support terrorism around the globe is vital to al Qaeda and its offshoots. Yet the old paradigm prevails, where offshore systems are unstudied, unregulated and free for multiple types of abuse.
To me, the bottom line remains the same. The law enforcement and intelligence communities still rely on regulation and the hopes of catching terrorist financial activity when it intersects with the formal financial structure. But that is often avoided, and the intersections are few and far between. On taking action against designated individuals, diplomatic nicities trump the hard realities that Saudi Arabia and other nations on the Arab Peninsula have done almost nothing except on paper to halt the flow of money and those individuals remain active.
The UAE has the added onus of being the center of operations for the illicit flights of Viktor Bout and his empire. Even though the UN has now taken steps that allow countries to step up enforcement action on Bout, the UAE has not lifted a finger to find or halt is now-banned flights.
All in all, it has been a year of very modest progress and few real steps in finding and plugging the holes in the financial system that are a lifeline to those who want to destroy us.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday December 21, 2005
The UN Finally Takes Action Against Bout Associates and Companies
Well, after months of delay (mostly on the U.S. part in getting the information to them), the United Nations finally designated two business associates of Viktor Bout and 30 of his companies, obligating member states to freeze all assests related to the people and firms and banning their international travel. The full list can be found here.
OFAC had designated the same people (Richard Chichakli, a U.S. citizen; and Valeriy Naydo, Ukranian), along with two others, and the same companies, in April. That made it illegal for any U.S. company to do any business with any company related to Bout--a legal barrier that has been routinely ignored by some in the Pentagon and some of their civilian contractors.
However, getting the exact same information to the UN so the designations would have a global effect took an inordinate amount of time because the whole thing got bogged down in the inter-agency review swamp for months--months used by Bout to create new companies, buy new aircraft and continue operating. While the Treasury Department gave the list to the State Department immediately after taking its own action, State was unable to move the papers along for almost six months. The UN acted with relative swiftness in getting the list issued once they got the request from the United States. Only two people, Sergei Bout (Viktor's brother and partner, and another Russian citizen) were kept off the global list due to a "technical hold" by the Russians, pending more information from the United States.
While the freezing measures, both in the United States and the UN, were based on Bout's support for Charles Taylor in Liberia, he is also accused by the U.S. government of making $50 million off of arms sales to the Taliban, weapons that were later used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In addition, Bout and his web of companies, according to U.S., European and U.N. investigators, has supplied an array of of other desiganted terrorist groups with weapons, including the FARC in Colombia.
The strength of the UN action is that it provides a legal basis for other nations to act against Bout and his companies. The UAE, for example, has not taken action against several Bout companies as requested by the United States because the companies were only designated by the Treasury Department. That is no longer the case. It remains to be seen if there is the political will to really take action against some of the designated companies like Irbiss that continue to fly openly out of Sarjah airport.
The weakness, of course, is that many of the designated companies are already shelved, and new companies have been established. The speed with which Bout is able to register and re-register aircraft under different company names is stunning. It is difficult to keep up with. The individuals may be harder to replace. Chichakli left the United States after his designation and continues to threaten to sue the U.S. Treasury and everyone else. Now he can add the UN to the list. However, truely blocking the assests and travel of designated individuals is something that has been far beyond the ken of most countries, even for those accused of terrorist activities. While the UN action is a small step in the right direction, it seems unlikely to really hurt Bout, Chichakli and the rest of those intent on staying in business and able to move through the cracks of the global enforcement system.
OFAC had designated the same people (Richard Chichakli, a U.S. citizen; and Valeriy Naydo, Ukranian), along with two others, and the same companies, in April. That made it illegal for any U.S. company to do any business with any company related to Bout--a legal barrier that has been routinely ignored by some in the Pentagon and some of their civilian contractors.
However, getting the exact same information to the UN so the designations would have a global effect took an inordinate amount of time because the whole thing got bogged down in the inter-agency review swamp for months--months used by Bout to create new companies, buy new aircraft and continue operating. While the Treasury Department gave the list to the State Department immediately after taking its own action, State was unable to move the papers along for almost six months. The UN acted with relative swiftness in getting the list issued once they got the request from the United States. Only two people, Sergei Bout (Viktor's brother and partner, and another Russian citizen) were kept off the global list due to a "technical hold" by the Russians, pending more information from the United States.
While the freezing measures, both in the United States and the UN, were based on Bout's support for Charles Taylor in Liberia, he is also accused by the U.S. government of making $50 million off of arms sales to the Taliban, weapons that were later used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In addition, Bout and his web of companies, according to U.S., European and U.N. investigators, has supplied an array of of other desiganted terrorist groups with weapons, including the FARC in Colombia.
The strength of the UN action is that it provides a legal basis for other nations to act against Bout and his companies. The UAE, for example, has not taken action against several Bout companies as requested by the United States because the companies were only designated by the Treasury Department. That is no longer the case. It remains to be seen if there is the political will to really take action against some of the designated companies like Irbiss that continue to fly openly out of Sarjah airport.
The weakness, of course, is that many of the designated companies are already shelved, and new companies have been established. The speed with which Bout is able to register and re-register aircraft under different company names is stunning. It is difficult to keep up with. The individuals may be harder to replace. Chichakli left the United States after his designation and continues to threaten to sue the U.S. Treasury and everyone else. Now he can add the UN to the list. However, truely blocking the assests and travel of designated individuals is something that has been far beyond the ken of most countries, even for those accused of terrorist activities. While the UN action is a small step in the right direction, it seems unlikely to really hurt Bout, Chichakli and the rest of those intent on staying in business and able to move through the cracks of the global enforcement system.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday December 20, 2005
An A on Terror Finance?
The one bright spot in the final report of the 9-11 Commission is combatting terror finance. While awarding the effort an A-, the Commission wrote:
"The U.S. has won the support of key countries in tackling terrorism finance—though there is still much to do in the
Gulf States and in South Asia. The government has made significant strides in using terrorism finance as an
intelligence tool. However, the State Department and Treasury Department are engaged in unhelpful turf battles,
and the overall effort lacks leadership."
I would beg to differ with the high grade, although, if it is grading on effort, it might be accurate. The truth is, accross the civilian and military terrain, I have not talked to anyone who really believes that we now have a handle on terror finance issues, especially the Zarqawi network, or that we have any real metrics for measuring true progress. It is true that there is broad lip service now paid across the Gulf region to the need to deal with terror finance issues, but charities continue to opereate, designated individuals continue to sit on the boards of the charities, offshore structures continue to function unimpeded. While there appear to have been some cash flow problems for the traditional al Qaeda structure, it does not seem those problems represented anything more than a temporary glitch.
There is also growing evidence of the willingness of al Qaeda and its affiliates to occassionally hook up with organized criminal groups, sometimes blending the two into one operation, as is the case with Dawood Ibrahim, the main subject of the fine U.S. News cover story from last week. So, the money may be generated from different sources and the organizations may not need the amount they once did to keep the Taliban afloat. The change is the funding patterns of Islamic extremist groups does not mean their financial flows are disrupted. It means, rather, that they are adaptable, flexible organizations that know how to move far ahead of where law enforcement and intelligence usually are.
I think some in the intelligence community dealing with this issue is finally getting out of traditional mindset of looking at banking regulation, SARs etc. as the primary tool to deal with terror finances, and are beginning to become more flexible, or at least more creative, in thinking about how it works. And that is progress, but after 4 years, I am not sure I would give that an A-, unless one were grading on a curve, which may be badly needed, given the other grades handed out.
The most telling line in the Commission report is that there is still a lack of leadership on this issue in the administration. The FBI has the lead, but has proven, through its history on this issue, that the lead role would have been better left with Treasury. The Bureau is exercising little leadership, but often likes to take over cases that develop, effectively keeping other agencies from exercising leadership either. The turf fights are noted, and that has been discussed here before. The question is, now what? Will there be a sustained effort, with senior leadership involved, to bring a serious focus to this? Or will there be a continued lack of engagement at the highest levels, meaning a lack of resources for the people in the trenches capably going about their jobs without fully committed leadership?
"The U.S. has won the support of key countries in tackling terrorism finance—though there is still much to do in the
Gulf States and in South Asia. The government has made significant strides in using terrorism finance as an
intelligence tool. However, the State Department and Treasury Department are engaged in unhelpful turf battles,
and the overall effort lacks leadership."
I would beg to differ with the high grade, although, if it is grading on effort, it might be accurate. The truth is, accross the civilian and military terrain, I have not talked to anyone who really believes that we now have a handle on terror finance issues, especially the Zarqawi network, or that we have any real metrics for measuring true progress. It is true that there is broad lip service now paid across the Gulf region to the need to deal with terror finance issues, but charities continue to opereate, designated individuals continue to sit on the boards of the charities, offshore structures continue to function unimpeded. While there appear to have been some cash flow problems for the traditional al Qaeda structure, it does not seem those problems represented anything more than a temporary glitch.
There is also growing evidence of the willingness of al Qaeda and its affiliates to occassionally hook up with organized criminal groups, sometimes blending the two into one operation, as is the case with Dawood Ibrahim, the main subject of the fine U.S. News cover story from last week. So, the money may be generated from different sources and the organizations may not need the amount they once did to keep the Taliban afloat. The change is the funding patterns of Islamic extremist groups does not mean their financial flows are disrupted. It means, rather, that they are adaptable, flexible organizations that know how to move far ahead of where law enforcement and intelligence usually are.
I think some in the intelligence community dealing with this issue is finally getting out of traditional mindset of looking at banking regulation, SARs etc. as the primary tool to deal with terror finances, and are beginning to become more flexible, or at least more creative, in thinking about how it works. And that is progress, but after 4 years, I am not sure I would give that an A-, unless one were grading on a curve, which may be badly needed, given the other grades handed out.
The most telling line in the Commission report is that there is still a lack of leadership on this issue in the administration. The FBI has the lead, but has proven, through its history on this issue, that the lead role would have been better left with Treasury. The Bureau is exercising little leadership, but often likes to take over cases that develop, effectively keeping other agencies from exercising leadership either. The turf fights are noted, and that has been discussed here before. The question is, now what? Will there be a sustained effort, with senior leadership involved, to bring a serious focus to this? Or will there be a continued lack of engagement at the highest levels, meaning a lack of resources for the people in the trenches capably going about their jobs without fully committed leadership?
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH