Tag Archives: Hezbollah

Soccer and politics in Argentina

Our previous two articles on Argentina focused on the growing problems the country is now experiencing and there are voices that are convinced that Mrs. Fernandez’s regime won’t last and are talking about the formation of a coalition government and even the possibility of holding elections at an earlier date. Although some say it might be too soon to be thinking about elections, many analysts are already considering possible candidates to replace Cristina. Argentina needs a change of direction and many analysts are convinced and hope that the person capable of doing that is the current Head of the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri.

Main News:

  • Hezbollah in Venezuela: Will the U.S. move?
  • Interpol Executive Committee affirms report on Reyes’ laptops.
  • More than 25,000 Operation Miracle surgeries in Nicaragua.
  • Colombia and Nicaragua clash at OAS meeting. Colombia Delays Resumption of Ties with Ecuador. McCain heads to Colombia and Mexico.
  • Argentina ‘s foreign debt surpasses US$127 billion. Argentine farmers end road blockade . Cristina among the three worst rated presidents. Spanish media blasts Kirchners "obscure political methods."
  • Chavez sends gratitude to Russia’s Putin for arms purchases. The US claims two Venezuelans cooperate with Hezbollah. Venezuela taking control of mines. Fighting inflation by reducing demand. Venezuela formalizes nationalization of cement industry. Over 30 associations join the campaign "Judge Chávez." Chávez threatens to stop oil sales to Europe. Moratinos offers help to Spaniards whose lands have been expropriated in Venezuela. Venezuela : Latin America’s Richest?
  • Paraguay ‘s Senate blocks president’s early exit.
  • Ecuador assembly head quits in constitution rift.
  • Bolivia ‘s four richest provinces confirm greater autonomy. Governors snub Bolivia referendum.

View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

 

Nancy Menges
Editor in Chief – "Americas Report"

Nicole M. Ferrand
Editor – "Americas Report"

 

For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at mengesproject@cen terforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

 

 

 

Beginning of the end of an obsolete regime

Visit the Americas Report blog at: http://themengesproject.blogspot.com and leave your comments


Highlighted Story: “The Argentinian Crisis: The beginning of the end of an obsolete regime.” This is the second of a three part series on the current crisis in Argentina.


The current crisis affecting the government of Cristina Kirchner could represent a major breakthrough in the cancer affecting the Latin American continent nowadays. The rebirth of old populism or the emergence of neo-populism in the continent in the 2000’s might have reached its own contradiction. If this is the case, the Argentinean crisis may present an opportunity for the constitutional spirit of the 1980’s and 1990’s to return and for Latin American as well as American political establishments to consider new policies. To learn more, please open the attachment.


Main News:



  • Spontaneous rallies surprise Kirchner and acolytes. Argentina Government Rally Disrupts Banks, Flights Businesses. Argentine president sends farmers’ tax bill to Congress. Farmers’ conflict is costing Argentina 3.4 billion US dollars. Argentines’ inflation expectations for next 12 months: 34.7%.

  • Colombian government probes into reports on FARC leader’s death. Brother of alleged drug lord extradited from Colombia.

  • Bolivia closer to the sea: Chile grants free access in Iquique.

  • NEWS FLASH: US accuses Venezuelan diplomat of working for Hezbollah. Venezuela faces the highest inflation in Latin America. ETA presence in Venezuela within the framework of Moratinos’ visit. Chvez welcomes Paraguayan president-elect. Attorney General Office investigates into death of journalist. Al Rodrguez Araque is the new Minister of Finance.

  • Peru admits talks for US air facilities in the highlands.

  • US Recalls Bolivia Envoy in Security Dispute.

View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF)


 


Nancy Menges
Editor in Chief – “Americas Report”


Nicole M. Ferrand
Editor – “Americas Report”


 


For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.


 


 

Israel’s Staticide?

There is a Greek tragedy unfolding today in the Middle East.  In response to past mistakes and as a result of hubristic political calculation, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is setting in motion forces that promise to lead inexorably to grief for his nation.  The result could be staticide, the destruction of the Jewish State, with incalculably serious repercussions for the Free World in general and the United States in particular.

In the pursuit of peace with its neighbors, Israel has made one strategic concession after another.  In 1979, it surrendered the Sinai to Egypt when Anwar Sadat promised peace and then was murdered for doing so.  In 1993, Israel adopted the Oslo accords, legitimating one of its most virulent enemies, the PLO terrorist chief Yasser Arafat, and setting the stage for Palestinian control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [More]

Eight years ago this month, Israel unilaterally withdrew from South Lebanon, creating a vacuum promptly filled by Iran’s proxy army there, Hezbollah.  Then, in 2005, Israel forcibly removed its citizens living in Gaza and turned the Strip over – temporarily – to Arafat’s right-hand man and successor, Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Space constraints will not permit a full rendering of the costs associated with these serial mistakes.  The “peace” with Egypt proved to be a very cold one.  In Sadat’s stead, the government of Hozni Mubarak has promoted virulent hatred for Israel among its people and assiduously armed for renewed conflict with the Jewish State.  It has also used the Sinai to funnel ever-longer-range missiles and other advanced weapons from Iran to the Gaza Strip – now under the control of another Palestinian terrorist faction, Hamas.

The latter and its friends, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, are now using Gaza as a safe-haven for planning and executing terrorism against Israel.  It is a safe bet that Israel’s most important ally, the United States, is being targeted from there, as well.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has not just taken over South Lebanon – its dominance of which was greatly strengthened when Olmert’s government proved incapable of decisively defeating the forces of this so-called “Army of God” in 2006.  In recent days, Hezbollah launched attacks in Beirut that effectively produced a coup d’etat.  The hopes for a democratic Lebanon, free of Syrian and Iranian interference, have given way to a dark future for the Lebanese people and their neighbors in Israel, alike.

Tragically, despite this sorry record of retreat followed by intensified danger, Ehud Olmert is making further and even more strategic territorial and political concessions to Israel’s enemies.  By so doing, the Israeli prime minister evidently hopes to stave off accountability for these past mistakes. He also appears to be calculating that “peace-making” will spare him prosecution on myriad corruption charges.

Unfortunately, there is now no basis for depicting such a policy as one in which Israel trades “land for peace.”  Today, Israel is giving up land for war.

In the illusion that that there is any appreciable difference between Fatah and Hamas, Olmert’s government is trying to turn over nearly all the West Bank and even parts of Jerusalem to Abbas and his faction’s Palestinian police force.  A similar illusion is causing the United States to give Fatah’s troops training, intelligence collection equipment and arms.  The latter have already used their American-supplied know-how and weapons to kill Israelis.

Olmert is also allowing the Egyptians to broker a cease-fire with Hamas.  The result is predictable:  Hamas will be legitimated, effectively ending international efforts to relegate it to pariah status and probably producing a unity government whereby the two Palestinian factions join forces once again. The stage will then be set for the ultimate defeat of Fatah by Hamas in the West Bank as well, putting all of Israel within range of its weapons.

These tragic steps are now being compounded by one further, potentially staticidal act:  Olmert has just launched negotiations to surrender all of the Golan Heights to Syria.  

This concession would place Syrian – and quite possibly Iranian – forces on high ground which, in Israeli hands, has kept the peace for 35 years. If once again at the disposal of Israel’s enemies, these heights will put northern Israel at risk of, at best, harassing fire and, at worst, a new invasion in force.

Moreover, as my esteemed colleague, Caroline Glick, observed in her Jerusalem Post column last week, if Israel can no longer use the Golan to threaten Syria, Damascus and Tehran may feel free to redouble their subversion in Iraq.  Iran may even conclude the Golan can allow it to checkmate any lingering Israeli willingness to interfere with the mullahs’ pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Importantly, the Israeli people finally seem to have had enough of false peace processes.  Recent polls indicate that two-thirds of Israelis oppose their country’s surrender of the Golan; a majority believe it is motivated by Olmert’s efforts to stave off prosecution. Even the Bush Administration is said to be unhappy about his Golan initiative.

This weekend, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – universally known as “the Israel lobby” – holds its annual Policy Conference in Washington.  The organization exists to support the Israeli government.  At this juncture, however, attendees have an opportunity and an obligation to object to that government’s increasingly reckless, and predictably tragic, conduct.  After all, friends don’t let friends commit staticide.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times

 

 

 

Lawfare: bleeping with the enemy

Piracy used to be a one way ticket to the gallows. With the Royal Navy these days, it may be a one way ticket to the pirates’ port of choice; or worse for the people of Britain, the chance for freebooters to claim asylum in the UK.

Last month, Britain’s Foreign Office instructed the Royal Navy not to return pirates to jurisdictions sporting Islamic law for fear that their human rights might be violated. It has even been discouraged from capturing pirates, because they might demand asylum in Britain, a request with which the UK might have to comply under international human rights law.

It isn’t that bad in the U.S. — yet — but things are getting worse. Welcome to the brave new world of “lawfare,“ the soft jihad that uses international organizations and treaties, but especially the courts, in an effort to undermine the ability of the West to fight Islamofascism; directly by making military action and law enforcement more difficult, and indirectly by suppressing free discussion of ideas that are crucial to understanding and confronting the Islamist threat.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, for instance, has recently called on the United Nations to help stifle criticism of Islam and has announced it will be stepping up legal efforts to deter what it terms the “defamation” of Islam, i.e., discussion of the Koran, Islamic law, and the roots and nature of jihad.

Particularly active domestically is the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR is, to say the least, controversial. It has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal criminal case involving the Holy Land Foundation “charity,” a Hamas front; a number of its founders had connections to terrorist organizations; and at least three of its employees have been convicted for terrorism-related activity.

CAIR claims to be merely an advocacy organization for Muslims. And Hannibal Lecter is a meat-eater. Twice true. But of more interest and relevance is that both are predators, with CAIR using threats and intimidation, as well as the legal process, to undermine law enforcement and whitewash the Islamists’ true vocation.

Especially with shadowy backers, CAIR knows the power of strong arm legal jihad.

Last August, CAIR attempted to prevent Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer from speaking at a YAF student conference by sending a lawyer’s letter threatening to sue organizers. Their claims were baseless; their tone menacing; their purpose merely to bully.

The same MO was employed last year in response to a NYPD report on Muslim radicalization. CAIR organized opposition to the report, insisted that it not be shared with other law enforcement agencies before its “misconceptions and errors” were corrected and demanded to know follow-up policing policies.

When it’s handy, CAIR pursues its goals with charges of discrimination and ethnic intolerance, couched in the rhetoric of civil rights and human decency toward which Americans are instinctively deferential. When that doesn’t work, it lays siege to individuals and organizations by creating a sense of legal or other danger and by using smears that make those favoring the quiet life think twice before speaking or acting.

In fact, none of CAIR’s charges of defamation has been successfully pursued to conclusion. It has lost or backed down in cases involving, among others, Congressman Cass Ballenger, who called the organization “the fundraising arm for Hezbollah”; Canada’s National Post; and the “Anti-CAIR.net.org” website.

CAIR was also behind the attempt of the “Flying Imams” to intimidate – by a law suit — those who would report suspicious behavior, and its website invites complaints about alleged discrimination by airlines as well as law enforcement personnel.

An organization that often protests its concern for the safety of Americans has assailed lengthy naturalization proceedings and encouraged lawsuits. In 2006 it joined a lawsuit to curtail the National Security Agency’s electronic intercepts of terrorist suspects’ communications. And it has provided the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, as well as airports, with what can only be a tendentious “sensitivity training” that undoubtedly compromises their work.

But CAIR isn’t alone making use of lawfare’s bespoke subversion.

In Canada, writer Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two “human rights commissions” on charges of “Islamophobia” and encouraging “hatred and contempt” for Muslims, following publication in Macleans magazine of an excerpt from his book, “America Alone.” The action was instigated by the Canadian Islamic Congress pursuant to European-style “hate laws” that prohibit the general kind of speech that would be protected in the U.S.

In Britain, absurdly strict libel laws allow forum shoppers to force books from shelves around the world. Cambridge University Press, for example, was sued for publishing a book connecting a wealthy Saudi, Khalid bin Mahfouz, with “charitable” organizations supporting jihad. Even while the book was published in Britain, a court ordered it removed from print and every last copy pulped — wherever found.

Fortunately, those who courageously refuse to buckle increasingly have access to legal assistance provided by organizations like The Middle East Forum. In New York State, the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” has been introduced to protect authors from meritless libel suits filed by plaintiffs taking advantage of foreign jurisdictions.

Still, many are deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights. They don’t want to get involved. The dread, the unknowns, and the mud.

A chill descends. The virus of dhimmitude infects non-Muslim countries. A healthy understanding of Islamofascism, sharia and jihad is replaced by ignorance or the Islamofascist line of a benign Islam and sharia, and skepticism about the terrorist threat — as it has in Europe and Britain.

In the U.S. lawyers haven’t yet forced our Navy to coddle pirates. A sense of reality remains that is not always shared by our European brothers and sisters.

But organizations like CAIR are increasingly using lawfare to pursue an agenda that stifles necessary analysis and discussion or otherwise compromises national security. The mischief continues, and the potential in our litigious society to advance Islamofascism through legal jihad is ultimately even greater than it is in Europe.

Originally Published in Human Events. 

 

Green Borders

One of the unfortunate paradoxes of the post-September 11 environment is that the further in time we move from that horrible day, and the more effective our security agencies become at preventing another successful terrorist attack on American soil, the more susceptible many Americans become to the notion that the terrorist threat has receded. Taking false comfort in the absence of a successful 9-11 scale attack or worse during the past seven years, many already pre-disposed to distrust the Bush administration have long since decided that it can do no right when it comes to terror prevention — that every counter-terrorism measure is simply an abuse of power disguised as vigilance

There are those, however, who should know better than most about the ongoing seriousness of the threat, among them those lawmakers tasked specifically with the formulation and oversight of counter-terrorism policy. It is for this reason that we should view with great alarm the fact that certain key Members of Congress — including the Chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — are teaming up with misguided environmental organizations in an effort to undo legislation intended to prevent terrorists from sneaking across our vulnerable southwestern border to conduct their operations.

While much of the debate on illegal immigration — especially during this presidential election cycle — has focused on the economic and general public safety consequences of the continued permeability at the border, the issue of terrorist infiltration into the United States via Mexican territory has received comparatively less attention. Such infiltration, however, remains a genuine national security risk, as has been thoroughly documented by investigative journalist Todd Bensman. According to Bensman, since the mid-1990s, operative or affiliates of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Tamil Tigers have been apprehended by U.S. authorities while jumping or after having jumped the border. Bensman also notes the 2004 arrest of a South African Muslim woman in Texas whom the federal government has disclosed was a smuggler specializing in moving Middle Easterners — including those with ties to terrorist organizations — into the U.S. via Texas.

Concern over such incidents has been reaffirmed at the highest levels of our national intelligence apparatus. In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2005, then Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security James Loy stated: "Recent information…strongly suggests that al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons." National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, during and interview with the El Paso Times just last year in which he acknowledged that terrorists have been crossing the southwest border, frame the situation this way: "You’ve got committed leadership. You’ve got a place to train. They’ve got trainers, and they’ve got recruits…The key now is getting recruits in. So if your key is getting recruits in, how would you do that?"

Add to this mix the growing and alarming presence of Middle Eastern terror organizations in Latin America, coupled with the blossoming relationship between that region’s anti-U.S. radical leaders and the Iranian godfathers of terror-sponsorship, and one can only conclude that this problem with escalate. In Congressional testimony earlier this year, the Center for Security Policy’s Nancy Menges outlined Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez’s growing ties with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which in turn is creating inroads for the latter to the leadership in Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia. According to Menges, U.S. Southern Command has acknowledged Venezuela’s Margarita Island is "one of the most important centers of terrorist gathering and money laundering activities for Hamas and Hezbollah." While these developments surely pose grave security risks for the people of Latin America, it does not take a leap of imagination to see in them a foothold for terrorist penetration in the United States.

CONGRESS HAD THESE and other security issues in mind when it passed Section 102 of the REAL ID Act of 2005. Back in 1996, Congress had authorized the construction of a border security fence along the southwestern border to deter illegal crossings. Section 102 of the REAL ID Act amended the 1996 law by granting the Secretary of Homeland Security "the authority to waive all legal requirements [as the Secretary] determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction" of the fence. Acting on this authority, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff notified the public in October of 2007 that he was waiving numerous environmental laws in order to expedite fence construction in an area known as the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) in Arizona, which Chertoff had identified as "an area of high illegal entry." This was followed by the use of two more waivers last month to advance construction in parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife apparently are not bothered by the security risks that such a porous border creates — at least not enough to restrain themselves from filing a lawsuit to prevent the DHS from doing the job that Congress is requiring it to do. The primary complaint driving this move: construction of a border fence would cut off cross-border populations of the same endangered jaguar and ocelot species from breeding with one another. It should be noted that these and other environmental concerns registered by environmental organizations and certain quarters of some border communities persist despite the fact that DHS, even after having used its waiver authority, continues to consult extensively with other federal agencies, state and local governments, community organizations, and concerned citizens about how to minimize the fence’s environmental impact.

Bu these DHS efforts are insufficient for the plaintiffs, who are proceeding with the litigation on constitutional grounds. The lawsuit alleges that Congress’s grant of waiver authority to DHS in 2005 was impermissibly broad, violating separation-of-powers doctrine by effectively delegating to the executive branch Congress’s authority to repeal laws.

This reasoning did not persuade Judge Ellen Huvelle of the U.S. federal district court in Washington, D.C. Judge Huvelle ruled last December that the overwhelming weight of U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirmed the constitutionality of the waiver. The Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife have since appealed the case directly to the Supreme Court, because the REAL ID Act — again, in the interest of expediting border fence construction — eliminated the option of appealing district court decisions on the DHS waiver to any of the federal appellate courts, making direct appeal to the Supreme Court the only legal option left. While the Court has yet to determine whether it will hear the case, the history of prior Court opinions on matters of Congressional delegation to the executive branch, as outlined by Judge Huvelle and echoed by some legal scholars, suggests that DHS would likely prevail. In the final calculus, however, this matter may not end with the courts but rather with Congress, which is why there is reason to remain deeply concerned about the fate of border security.

It is disturbing yet not all that surprising that the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife have unreasonably chosen to prioritize jaguar populations over millions of Americans who remain targets of terrorism. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a fellow traveler in eroding national security in pursuit of its own brand of environmental purity, has successfully (for now) used the court system to prevent the Navy from conducting critical sonar training off the West Coast for fear of the alleged harm sonar frequencies cause to whale and dolphin populations. The actions of these organizations are indicative of a worldview according to which national security risks are either non-existent, exaggerated, or simply not worth fussing over they can’t be addressed by measures that meet the loftiest standards of green.

BUT WHAT SHOULD surprise us — indeed, alarm us — is that some Members of Congress who exercise significant power when it comes to national security are lining up to unravel progress towards this critical fence. Fourteen Members of Congress have filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ position that the waiver power authorized by Congress in 2005 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive. Those Members include the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi), and the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Sylvestre Reyes (D-Texas).

Thompson and Reyes having signed onto this amicus brief is indicative of one of two things: (1) either these Chairmen of committees critical to our national security have not been fully briefed on the threat that terrorists could infiltrate the U.S. via the southwest border, and have already done so — a proposition difficult to believe; or (2) these Chairmen, despite their responsibilities to help protect the United States from the next terrorist attack, have joined the "can-do-no-right" crowd, letting themselves become enmeshed in a partisan mentality that places higher priority on reflexively depicting this administration as abusive of its national security authority than on coming up with meaningful solutions that will actually prevent terrorism. In the process, these Members have already provided another boost for environmental "lawfare" that will likely encourage similar litigation in the future.

If legal efforts to nullify Chertoff’s waivers fail, Congressional repeal of the waiver authority may turn out to be the only conceivable option for those bent on tying the hands of the DHS on construction of the border fence. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona) has already introduced legislation that would do just that, and it continues to gather co-sponsors. Hopefully there are still enough Members of Congress who remain mindful of the non-jaguar population when pondering the future of border security.

Ben Lerner is Senior Research Associate with the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.This article was published in The American Spectator.

 

 

The Leaker Shield Act

There is something unique about what has come to be called the War on Terror.  In this conflict, as the U.S. government struggles to defeat the enemy and keep our people safe, it is up against not only those who overtly and unambiguously seek to destroy us.  It also confronts those who are prepared to reveal classified information and programs, even when doing so makes it harder to vanquish our foes and protect this country.

The latter fall into four principal categories:

Some call themselves "journalists" who work for traditional news organizations, notably the New York Times.  On occasion, they win Pulitzer Prizes for compromising the Nation’s secrets.

Some are members of what has come to be called the "new media" or "alternative media." Most traditional journalists detest the idea that their trade is being practiced by people who find in outlets like on-line publications, the Blogosphere, YouTube and FaceBook vehicles to disseminate information worldwide and instantaneously.  But the reach of the world-wide web is, well, world-wide and so is the impact of its "journalists."

[More]Among those making use of these "New Age" tools are some who use the guise of journalism as a cover for our enemy’s disinformation and propaganda.  In fact, some of the most capable users of the Internet routinely engage in information warfare on behalf of Islamofascist terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and their state-sponsors.

Then there are the individuals who hold positions of trust in the federal government itself.  They have been given access to secret data and capabilities on the promise not to reveal such knowledge without authorization.  Yet, some choose to violate their oaths in the furtherance of divergent policy agendas.  Of course, folks in this category are not journalists.  They are called "sources."

It is imperative to consider these four categories as the U.S. Senate prepares to consider legislation with the unobjectionable-sounding name of the "Free Flow of Information Act (FFIA) of 2007."  The bill, S. 2035, is better known as the "media shield" law.  It would be more accurate to call it the "Leaker and Other Enemies Shield Act."

Freedom of the press is, of course, one of the bedrock principles upon which this nation was founded.  And those who dare criticize the media and its efforts to expand privileges it enjoys under the rubric of press freedoms – notably, officials responsible for prosecuting journalists’ "confidential government sources" for the illegally revelation of classified information – generally are subjected to very bad notices. 

Still, it is a terrible idea – particularly in time of war – to be providing "media shields" to anyone who can claim to be a journalist and to their law-breaking sources in government.  Yet, that is precisely what S.2035 would do.
           
The FFIA creates a highly problematic journalist’s privilege.  It would effectively prevent the federal government from compelling anyone "engaging in journalism" to give testimony or produce any document revealing that journalist’s source, if the source gave the information under cover of confidentiality. 

Were S.2035 to become law, investigators and prosecutors charged with bringing to justice sources who have engaged in criminal leaks would have to prove all of the following to the satisfaction of a federal judge: (1) The government has first exhausted all other avenues besides the journalist to obtain a source’s identity; (2) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has taken place; (3) the source’s identity is "essential" to the investigation; (4) the information that was disclosed was "properly classified" to begin with; (5) the person who leaked the information had authorized access to it; (6) the source’s unauthorized disclosure "has caused or will cause significant, clear, and articulable harm to the national security; and (7) non-disclosure of the source’s identity would be contrary to the public interest when weighed against the other public interest in "gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information." 

As a practical matter, as an array of Cabinet and subcabinet officers responsible for keeping us safe and enforcing the law have warned the Senate, no source is going to be held accountable under this law. For example, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell advised the Senate’s leadership they would be hobbled by myriad Catch-22s inherent in the FFIA.

Consider two of these cited by the AG and DNI: How can a prosecutor show that a person who leaked information had authorized access to it (Requirement 5), without first knowing the identity of the source?  How can a prosecutor show that a leak "has caused or will cause significant, clear, and articulable harm to the national security" (Requirement 6), without first having to offer evidence to a judge that will reveal even more classified information? 

By assuring "journalists" – the bill’s definition is broad enough to cover all of the first three categories described above – they need not fear having to divulge the source of a leak, sources will feel even less compunction than they do today to break their promises and leak with impunity. 

In short, the Free Flow of Information Act is not about freedom of the press.  It is about freeing government officials of their legal responsibilities and enabling those who would do us all harm – whether intentionally or in the name of "the people’s right to know."  The President’s senior advisors have rightly indicated that they will recommend his veto should this bill make it to his desk. Senators should ensure that the Leakers and Other Enemies Protection Act never gets there.

 

Sirens in the Strait

In ancient Greek mythology, the Sirens were beautiful sea-maidens, known for chanting sweet melodies to lure hapless sailors into dangerous waters, only to face their demise amongst the jagged rocks. Today’s Sirens are similarly dangerous, using the promise of peace and stability on the oceans to lure various American constituencies into the perilous contours that make up the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST).

Because the melody takes many forms, numerous analysts have dutifully responded by providing warnings, on these pages and elsewhere, about the various pitfalls and shortcomings contained in this Treaty. We have yet to see, however, a direct response to a particularly disingenuous and dangerously naive siren song: the assertion that our maritime interaction with the terrorism-sponsoring, petro-dictators of Iran could prove less explosive, if only we sign up for the “legal order for the seas and oceans” that LOST holds itself out to be.

In the ongoing debate over whether to subject American maritime interests to the whims of the “international community,” a subset of LOST proponents have taken to pointing to the January 2008 near-altercation between U.S. warships and Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz as evidence of the necessity of U.S. ratification. The notion, however, that accession to LOST either could have prevented such a confrontation or will effectively do so in the future reveals both a lack of understanding about the nature of the leadership in Tehran, as well as a remarkable lack of understanding of the Treaty’s potential to enable and encourage Iranian aggression against the United States.

The incident at issue occurred on January 6, 2008, when, according to accounts by the U.S. Navy, five armed Iranian speedboats manned by the infamous Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps aggressively approached three American warships in the Strait. The speedboats maneuvered very close to the convoy, with at least one coming within 200 yards of one of the ships. Navy recordings picked up a heavily accented voice in English, the exact source of which was not entirely clear, saying “I am coming to you…You will explode after a few minutes.” One of the speedboats proceeded to drop several small, white box-like floating objects in the path of the American convoy.

In the course of the exchange, an American sailor was recorded as saying, “This is a coalition warship. I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law. I intend no harm.” After ignoring this and other repeated warnings from the warships for roughly 30 minutes, the speedboats fled as American commanders prepared to open fire. In a briefing given shortly after the incident, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, maintained that the warships were traveling 15 miles from Iranian land territory at the time, and therefore outside the outer limits of the 12-mile Iranian territorial waters.

For its part, Tehran accused the United States of “fabricating” the video and audio footage that captured the episode. The Revolutionary Guard Corps maintained that it only asked the warships to identify themselves, as is typical Iranian practice with respect to ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the Iranian Defense Minister. Vice Admiral Cosgriff responded that the American vessels were clearly marked, and had been identified by Iranian authorities earlier that day.

From this incident flows the argument in some quarters that American ratification of LOST will take away Iran’s “pretext” to challenge American warships in the Strait of Hormuz as it did in January. Apparently, by approving our previous signature to a piece of paper, the U.S. will change Iranian behavior by somehow strengthening the American position that LOST’s provisions allowing “transit passage” through international straits, such as the Strait of Hormuz, are already customary international law, of which the U.S. is entitled to avail itself.

Of course Iran, while having signed LOST, has yet to ratify it, and therefore would not be bound by any of its terms even if we were to commit ourselves. Putting that aside, with respect to Washington-Tehran tensions, American ratification of LOST would at best severely constrain American rights on the oceans while allowing Iran to continue to thumb its nose at whatever “international consensus” emerged on the Strait of Hormuz or other issues. Moreover, at worst, Iran could opt to ratify LOST in response, enabling Ahmadinejad and his masters to exploit the myriad opportunities the Treaty provides for waging “lawfare” against the U.S. in ways that put our national security at grave risk.

To assert that American ratification will strengthen the U.S. position on legality of passage in the Strait by bringing other countries on board with our interpretation is to ignore Iran’s track record of non-responsiveness to any semblance of international consensus. By all accounts, Iran remains well on its way to the level of independent uranium enrichment that would allow it to have nuclear weapons, despite successive rounds of United Nations sanctions intended to force Iran to suspend such activities. Through its proxy, Hezbollah, Iran also continues to disregard the U.N.’s explicit recognition that Israel, by withdrawing from southern Lebanon in 2000, fully implemented U.N. Security Council Resolution 425 — adherence to which was supposed to eliminate the “pretext” for further Hezbollah (Iranian) attacks. And of course one could write a treatise on Tehran’s ongoing persecution of religious minorities, despite the oft-expressed global condemnation of such practices, including most recently the State Department’s designation of Iran as a “Country of Particular Concern” on such matters.

If, for the sake of argument, there was reason to believe Iran would take seriously any global consensus on passage through the Strait of Hormuz that would supposedly emerge from American ratification of LOST, the U.S. would still be paying far too high a price simply to codify what we already maintain is our right under customary international law. Under LOST, state parties have the ability to use any number of LOST provisions to undermine American sovereignty and security.

The text of LOST would prevent Navy vessels from engaging in the very activities necessary for a strong national defense, for example, by reserving the oceans for “peaceful purposes” and prohibiting submarines from traversing below the surface in territorial waters, and would require the U.S. to transfer knowledge of sensitive marine technology to requesting parties. Although some contend that we already adhere to some of the navigational practices found in LOST, either because we recognize them as customary international law or consider ourselves bound to such practices by previous (non-LOST) treaty commitments, this Treaty alters the framework entirely by requiring state parties to submit to mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms, the rulings of which are binding and without appeal.

While the Department of Defense has maintained that American military activities will be exempt from dispute resolution, and that in any event the U.S. will only submit to LOST arbitration panels where the DoD insists we will win handily, there is plenty of room for abuse. “Military activity”, while nominally exempt from any dispute resolution, remains undefined in the treaty, leaving opportunity for parties hostile to U.S. interests to frame our exercises or operations as “environmental” activities subject to arbitration. The recent ruling by a U.S. District Court judge that sonar training off of the West Coast was not a national security issue, but rather an environmental issue subject to the constraints of federal environmental statutes, illustrates the reality of this risk.

This danger would be magnified in a LOST arbitration panel. Under LOST, if the disputing parties cannot agree on the make-up of the panel, the fifth panelist must be chosen by either the President of the International Law of the Sea Tribunal, or the Secretary General of the United Nations, neither of whom could be relied upon to select a “swing” panelist that would not, acting out of ultimately political motives, tip the panel against the U.S.

Even without any subsequent Iranian ratification, countries that are already party to LOST– including China and Russia, with their increasingly aggressive territorial claims and military confrontations with the U.S. — could take advantage of the obligations buried in the treaty text to our detriment. Iran, were it to ratify LOST, would be no less inclined to wage such lawfare to accomplish what five Revolutionary Guard Corps speedboats could not.

The United States cannot afford to be seduced by those who overestimate Iran’s sense of global responsibility while underestimating its potential to use LOST as yet another asymmetrical weapon. American sovereignty, an unfettered Navy, and where applicable, customary international law, remain our best tools for ensuring stability in critical ocean pathways like the Strait of Hormuz.

This article first appeared in American Spectator, and can be viewed in its original form here.

CSP’s Menges Project testifies on Capitol Hill

(Washington, D.C.): In a clear demonstration of the long overdue urgency with which the United States must turn to the security situation in Latin America, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is massing troops on neighboring Colombia’s border in response to Colombia’s recent raid against FARC operatives in Ecuador.  In the wake of these and other significant and troubling developments in Latin America – including the ascension of Fidel Castro’s brother and long-time Defense Minister Raul Castro to the Cuban presidency, as well as Chavez’s embrace of the Hezbollah-sponsoring Iranian regime and ongoing support for violent groups such as the narco-terrorist FARC – Nancy Menges of the Center for Security Policy appeared today before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere to discuss the growing turmoil in the region and its implications for American national security. 

Ms. Menges manages the Center’s Menges Hemispheric Security Project, and also serves as Editor-in-Chief of The Americas Report – a Center for Security Policy publication covering political and security developments in the Western Hemisphere.  In her prepared remarks and in response to questions from Committee members, Ms. Menges made the following comments and policy recommendations with respect to this critical region:

  • The embargo against Cuba must remain in place.  The leadership change in Cuba does not signify any change in ideology, governance, or human freedoms for the Cuban people.  Lifting the embargo now would be interpreted as a defeat for U.S. policy, and would provide the Castro government with newly acquired wealth with which to strengthen its hold on the people of Cuba.
  • Venezuela ‘s Hugo Chavez is pursuing nuclear cooperation with Iran.  Chavez has defended Iran’s right to produce atomic energy while declaring his own aspirations to develop nuclear weapons for "peaceful purposes", and has stated his intention to seek cooperation with Latin American countries and Iran in this regard.  Reports have confirmed the production of uranium inside Venezuela.
  • Chavez is cultivating relationships with radical Islamist terror organizations including Iranian-backed Hezbollah.  The U.S. Southern Command has identified Isla Margarita as one of the most important centers of terrorist gathering and money laundering activities for Hamas and Hezbollah.  Following Islamist terrorism doctrine, Chavez has spoken publicly about the adoption of methods such as suicide bombers in the event of a war between Venezuela and the United States.
  • Iran is making its presence felt in other Latin American countries such as Nicaragua and Bolivia.  Nicaragua exerts no control over the movements of Iranian diplomats, and it was recently disclosed that President Daniel Ortega permitted twenty-one Iranians to enter the country without visas.  Nicaragua has also signed numerous agreements with Iran on energy, technology, and commerce.  In Bolivia, President Evo Morales has welcomed the Iranians and is allowing them to open a radio station, which could enable Iran to spread its ideology throughout Latin America.
  • Chavez is actively supporting numerous violent revolutionary organizations in Latin America, including the narco-terrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).  Chavez is also lending ideological and financial support to violent revolutionary organizations in Argentina and Peru.
  • The U.S. must take several steps to counter Chavez’s influence in the region.  These includes:
  1. Provide continued support to Colombia, a critical ally in the region through measures such as the reauthorization of "Plan Colombia";
  2. Work with opposition leaders and activists in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia who are committed to democracy and the rule of law;
  3. Reduce regional dependence on Venezuelan oil;
  4. Ratify free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama;
  5. Educate Latin American countries about the dangers Iran poses to the region; and
  6. Rebuild American public diplomacy and broadcasting efforts to counter Iranian radio programming and propaganda.

Ms. Menges concluded by observing: "We cannot afford to be optimistic about events in Latin America in the era of terrorism in an area where Chavez and Iran are cooperating so closely. Our foreign policy should be comprehensive and creative and needs a most serious cooperation between the Administration and Congress. It needs to be taken seriously and not pushed to the backburner because of the emergence of other conflicts in the world."

A copy of the full testimony is available here.

Tehran threat in the US’ backyard

 

While some world leaders are extremely concerned about the real threat Iran poses to peace, with Ahmadinejad announcing just recently on January 29, 2008 that it was close to its target of producing nuclear energy by saying: "We are moving towards the summit on the nuclear path," the Tehran menace is much closer to the US than ever: in Nicaragua.

Iran has been slapped with two sets of UN sanctions for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment and a third package is currently being considered by the Security Council. The West fears that Iran is using its nuclear drive to try to build atomic weapons, a charge Tehran has consistently denied, saying it is aimed at generating electricity. Uranium enrichment is a process which makes nuclear fuel but can also be diverted to produce the fissile core of atomic bombs.

The Security Council held informal talks on a third sanctions resolution, a draft of which was agreed by the five veto-wielding permanent members: Britain, China, France, Russia and United States plus Germany. The proposed new measures include an outright travel ban by officials involved in Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs and inspections of shipments to and from Iran if there are suspicions of prohibited goods. [1]

We at the Americas Report have been following closely the Iranian President’s movements in Latin America during 2007, when he visited Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ecuador while developing ties with these countries’ leaders, specifically with Hugo Chavez (read ‘The Americas Report’ from January 19, 2007: "Chavez and the Iranian connection" by Luis Fleischman).

Diplomatic Relationship between Ahmadinejad and Ortega

Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez opened Latin America to Iran by signing multiple accords with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, including bilateral deals on oil, tractors and bicycles. The relationship between these two leaders is first of all geopolitical and then economic.

In January 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad led a five-day official visit to Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Ecuador. His visit coincided with the inauguration of Nicaragua’s newly-elected president Daniel Ortega where Ahmadinejad was a guest of honor. At the inauguration ceremony, the Iranian president was awarded two state medals.

Iran recently established an embassy in Managua and the new envoy is Akbar Esmaeil-Pour. This compound, in an upper-scale neighborhood in Managua is said to be huge and lies behind twelve-foot-high concrete walls.  Diplomats have immunity coming and going and the building is protected against espionage. Such an embassy in Managua is definitely of concern to US national security interests. Since the Iranians are allowed to come and go as they wish and there is no surveillance by the Nicaraguans as to what goes on inside this compound, it is easy to imagine that this new embassy might be used for smuggling of weapons and development and execution of plans to attack American interests. Ortega shares an ideological affinity with Iran including a hatred of the West so he is all too happy to use his territory as a jumping off point for terrorism.

Even more dangerous is the fact that on July 2007 it was discovered that Ortega permitted 21 Iranians to enter the country without visas. (Here is the link to the official document: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/images/graphics/20071216MigrationDoc.pdf.)

The letter is addressed to the CEO of TACA, Juan Salguero. TACA is the flag airline of El Salvador, comprised of a group of five combined Central American airlines. The company is owned by the Kriete family of San Salvador. Originally an acronym of Transportes Aéreos Centroamericanos (Central American Air Transport), it now stands for Transportes Aéreos del Continente Americano (Air Transport of the American Continent), reflecting its expansion to North, Central and South America. It flies to about 50 different countries. The five airlines are: Aviateca (Guatemala), Lacsa (Costa Rica), NICA (Nicaragua), Taca (El Salvador) and Taca de Honduras (Honduras). It comes from the Nicaraguan immigration offices and reads as follows: After revising the resolution number 347-07-2007, the following Iranian citizens are allowed to enter Nicaragua without visas arriving at the Cesar Sandino Airport via Lacsa, flight number LR-718 departing from Costa Rica arriving in Managua on July 31, 2007 at 9:15am. Then there is a list of names and last names of the "tourists." The document is signed by Pamela Aguilar Mora, the Nicaraguan head of immigration.

This clearly shows that the Ortega regime is eager to allow Iranians in and out of Nicaragua and terrorists might find it extremely easy to come to the region to carry out terrorist attacks against the US or other countries in Latin America. Iran could stage strikes on American or allied interests from Nicaragua, deploying the Iranian terrorist group Hezbollah and Revolutionary Guard operatives already in Latin America. They could easily go to Mexico and then illegally enter the US.

Commercial deals between Nicaragua and Iran

Tehran is launching new cultural exchange programs in Nicaragua to encourage trade and investment. Nicaragua has signed contracts with Iran worth hundreds of millions of dollars. President Daniel Ortega has agreed to trade bananas, coffee and meat in exchange for Iranian help with infrastructure projects. T hey have signed agreements for bilateral cooperation in 25 sectors.

In return for Nicaraguan agricultural goods, Iran is to help fund a farm equipment factory, 4,000 tractors, five milk-processing plants, a health clinic, 10,000 houses and a deep-water port. In November Iran is also expected to choose a site for a 120 million dollar hydroelectric power station, with another three plants potentially to follow. The Sandinista leader has upgraded ties with Cuba and North Korea, and in June visited Iran, Algeria, Libya and Cuba in a jet lent by Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi.

Bill Weinberg, editor of the online journal World War 4 Report and a co-founder of the National Organization for the Iraqi Freedom Struggles recently wrote a very interesting article titled: Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Nicaragua to scout "Dry Canal" project? , which talks about how Nicaragua’s Sandinista President Daniel Ortega, Iran and Venezuela have announced the financing of a $350 million deep-water port at Monkey Point on the wild Caribbean shore, and then plow a connecting "dry canal" corridor of pipelines, rails and highways across the country to the populous Pacific Ocean.

Ahmadinejad also promised that, along with Monkey Point, the will include fixing the Pacific port of Corinto. Also in December 17, 2007 Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported a visit to Managua by Ezzatollah Zarghami, president of Iranian state radio and television, who pledged to make programming available for local broadcast.

Monkey Point is inhabited by the Rama and Creole communities who live in isolation and are people of predominately African ancestry who subsist on fish and jungle animals. The Iranian presence in Nicaragua became news in December 2007, when some angry Rama Indian and Creole villagers complained about two helicopters landing in their territory. Rupert Allen Clear Duncan, a leader of some 400 Creole who live along the shoreline, confronted the foreigners dressed in suits and military uniforms and demanded to know the purpose of their aerial trespasses." This is our land; we have always lived here, and you don’t have our permission to be here," Duncan got angry when these people refused to give an explanation. Then Duncan threatened to destroy the aircraft and that is when he and his followers learned, in astonishment, that some of the men were from the Islamic Republic of Iran and had come promising to establish a Central American foothold in the middle of their territory. [2] Days later a Nicaraguan website, Nicaragua Hoy, called the Iranian team that visited Monkey Point "advance parties of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard."

Ortega immediately reacted saying that the Iranians were there as part of a cultural delegation. Weinberg also states that a feasibility study for a Bluefields-Nueva Guinea highway has been completed by the Danish development agency DANIDA, linking two towns in the Southern Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAS), with a further link foreseen to Monkey Point (which lies south of Bluefields, the RAAS seat). The Spanish national port authority completed a similar study for the Monkey Point dredging project in 2000. The report says the Venezuelan Army Corps of Engineers is now studying construction of a highway between Puerto Cabezas in the Northern Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) and Rio Blanco in the central department of Matagalpa, also to be integrated into the network linking to the Dry Canal. The report also claimed Nicaraguan army Chief Omar Halleslevens Acevedo is seeking to purchase helicopters, patrol boats and arms from Iran. [3]

Since being elected President of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega has developed extremely close relationships with US foes adopting the same populist-socialist-leftist rhetoric of his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chávez, and his recent actions suggest that he wants to consolidate power and back Chávez’s 21st century socialist vision for Latin America. Ortega dreams of a long run as president of Nicaragua. His renewed anti-American rhetoric, destabilizing economic policies and friendship with Chávez and Ahmadinejad has not been welcomed by Nicaraguans or Americans. Since Ortega took office, the economy has slowed, and his approval rating has dropped. In the June 2007 CID-Gallup poll, only 26 percent of those surveyed approved of Ortega’s performance, a sharp drop from his 61 per­cent approval rating in February. [4]

But the problem doesn’t end here. The Menges Hemispheric Security Project has been warning about the presence of Hezbollah in Latin America. Hezbollah has fronts all over the region. (Please read "The Americas Report March 28, 2007 titled: The Radical Grassroots: a danger on the Horizon" by Luis Fleischman and Nicole M. Ferrand, and "The Americas Report April 11, 2007 titled: The Radical Grassroots Part II" by Luis Fleischman and Nicole M. Ferrand). Iran and Hezbollah are now present in Argentina, the tri-border region between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua. It may be even the case that they are already present in Cuba.

On March, 2007 Iran Air, Iran’s national airline, had completed its first direct flight to Venezuela. This weekly, commercial flight linking Tehran and Caracas stops in Damascus, Syria, before crossing the Atlantic Ocean. Travelers from those countries to Venezuela are visa-exempt, raising concerns that terrorists may attempt to exploit weak Venezuelan immigration controls to undertake acts of terror in the U.S. or elsewhere in the hemisphere. Other nations like Qatar, Syria and Poland are interested in using Venezuela as a new commercial route for their businesses.

Iran now has fully operational embassies in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Nicaragua with plans to strengthen its diplomatic presence in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Uruguay. Given the growing presence of radical, anti-western Iran in Central and South America, the threat to the national security interests of the United States and the region is a very real concern. How the United States Government chooses to respond to this threat has tremendous implications for our future survival. 

 

[1] Iran’s vows to win nuclear tussle with West. January 30, 2008. AFP.

[2] Iran making push into Nicaragua. December 18, 2007. Todd Bensman. Express-News.

[3] Avanzadilla de la Guardia Revolucionaria Iraní en Monkey Point. December 22, 2007. Nicaragua Hoy.

[4] "The Honeymoon Is Over: Ortega’s Job Approval Crashes," Public Opinion Survey: Nicaragua. June 2007.

Shariah’s Trojan horse

Suddenly, a new national debate is beginning about the national security, economic and other implications of Persian Gulf potentates using their petrodollars to buy up strategic American assets.  Most recently, the Emir of Dubai’s purchase at fire-sale prices of 4.9 percent of the largest U.S. bank, Citigroup, has caused a level of unease not seen since he tried to buy his way into a large number of this country’s port facilities. 

Almost completely unremarked thus far has been a parallel – and in many ways far more insidious – effort to penetrate, influence and dominate America’s capital markets:  so-called "Shariah finance."  Some estimates suggest that there are approaching $1 trillion now being invested around the world under this rubric.  If present trends continue, all other things being equal, such funds may grow to many times that amount within a few years.

Shariah is, of course, the term used by adherents to the totalitarian ideology practiced by the Saudi Wahhabis, the Iranian mullahs and the Taliban to describe the all-encompassing theocratic code they use to justify repressive rule at home and to extend their dominance elsewhere.  While it is often depicted by its promoters as Koranic in character, in fact, it is largely man-made, the product of dictates and rulings by caliphs and scholars over many centuries.

For non-Muslims, Shariah is best known for its sanction for the brutalization of women, homosexuals and Jews.  Beheadings, amputations, flagellation and stoning are among the prescribed punishments for those who transgress this barbaric code, punishments plucked from primitive tribal practices in the Arabian deserts dating back to medieval times.

As a recent, excellent paper by my colleague at the Center for Security Policy, Alex Alexiev, points out, however, Shariah finance is a relatively contemporary innovation.  It was not until mid-20th Century that Islamofascist ideologues like Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb introduced the notion that faithful Muslims must invest their wealth only in vehicles that comply with Shariah’s putative prohibition on interest.  In the decades that followed, relatively few in the Muslim world followed this admonition as most Muslims regarded with appropriate skepticism financial schemes that generally were not reliable investments, especially those that went to almost-farcical lengths to conjure up returns without acknowledging they amounted to interest payments.  

Until now.  In recent years, the windfall revenues flowing to the oil-exporting nations of the Persian Gulf have translated into an opportunity for the Islamists who dominate their societies to enlist the West’s leading financial institutions as partners in promoting Shariah finance.  In overseas capital markets and increasingly on Wall Street, "Shariah advisors" are being hired at great cost to bless investment instruments as compliant with this religious code. 

As a result, three ominous things are occurring:

First, Shariah finance creates a mechanism for systematically legitimating the underlying, repressive theo-political regimen – and, thereby, advancing its adherents’ bid to govern all Muslims and, in due course, the entire world.  

Presumably, Western bankers and investment houses would be horrified to know they are helping promote such arrangements.  One would think their governments would be, too.  Yet, the former are so avidly pursuing Mideast wealth that few seem prepared to engage in even the most superficial due diligence about the implications of Shariah finance.  And British prime minister Gordon Brown, for example, has declared he intends to make London the Islamic finance capital of the world.  His government has said it intends to issue its own sukuk (or "Shariah-compliant" bonds) sometime next year. 

The trouble is that, having embraced one aspect of Shariah, it will be vastly more difficult, if not as a practical matter impossible, to deny Islamist activists their demands to accommodate other aspects such as: footbaths in public institutions, prayer rooms and time off for prayers in both public and private sector establishments, latitude for cab drivers and cashiers to decline to do business with certain customers or handle certain products, an Islamist public school in Brooklyn, etc.  Like Shariah finance, each of these is but a beachhead in the Islamofascists’ patient, determined and ultimately seditious campaign to subvert and supplant Western free societies. 

Elsewhere in some of those societies, such inroads have been expanded to include: demands for Shariah-compliant schools as in the UK; a push in Canada for separate shariah courts for all matters within the Muslim community; Shariah tolerance for honor killings of women attempted in Germany; destruction of non Shariah-compliant businesses in dedicated "Muslim enclaves" in France; and in various countries, Shariah-approved assassinations of critics of Islam and anyone leaving Islam worldwide.

Second, the Shariah advisors hired by Western capitalists to determine whether investments are "halal" (the Muslim equivalent of kosher) are generally among the foremost adherents to the Islamist creed and associated with organizations that promote it.  As one of them put it, Shariah investing is simply "financial jihad" against the unbelievers.

Third, under the direction of these Shariah advisors, at least 2.5% of the proceeds of the investments they control are donated to Zakat funds.  Some of these "charities" have been known to contribute to organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, the families of suicide bombers in Palestinian communities and Islamist madrassas in places like Pakistan.  As investment advisors start promoting Shariah finance vehicles and Islamic indexes like Standard & Poors and Dow Jones, non-Muslim Americans will find themselves tithing to these dubious causes, as well.

Before the Trojan horse of Shariah finance is fully wheeled inside the gates of the American capital markets, federal regulators, corporate boards of directors and U.S. shareholders need to understand whether such investing conforms with the good governance and accountability required under Sarbanes-Oxley, the transparency depositors are entitled to under our banking laws and legislation barring material support to terrorism.  To do otherwise is to invite the introduction of the instrument of our undoing into our capitalist system and the freedom-loving society it underpins.