Terror and the World Financial System

[onedomino]

Can any USMB members remember any news stories associated with terror busts that resulted from identifying and eliminating the sources and conduits of terror money? I read a lot of news and I cannot remember any reports of such activity. There has been political lip service and some laws passed here and there, but where are the busts of banking industry financial workers that have helped transmit terror funds around the globe? For example, how does a member of Hamas obtain $500K in cash to sneak across the border into Gaza to pay terrorist gunmen and purchase weapons? Such actually happened. It is known because the Israelis apprehended the Hamas agent. How does OBL’s money get distributed to his terror cells? Where does the money come from for these cells to buy guns and explosives? How does money from Saudi Arabia make its way to terror cells in Iraq? This kind of activity cannot happen without the aid of financial workers and institutions. Even if these activities come to light, what is the penalty? A lawsuit? Obviously, financial institutions are off limits in the War on Terror. But if we were serious about the fight, as soon as a financial institution was identified as responsible for the distribution of terror funds, then that location would receive an after hours visit from Special Forces or a 4AM wakeup call from a Tomahawk. When will we get serious about cutting off terrorist funding by going after the individuals and institutions that facilitate these transactions?

Below is a story news story concerning a lawsuit directed at a French bank that apparently facilitated the transfer of terror funds. The individuals responsible should receive far more than a mere lawsuit. If guilty, they should get a late evening visit on the last night of their lives. They are enemy combatants.

Suicide Bomb Victims Can Sue Credit Agricole Unit

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-10-05T231259Z_01_N05239675_RTRIDST_0_CRIME-CREDITAGRICOLE.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

NEW YORK, Oct 5 (Reuters) - A lawsuit by families of suicide bomb victims in Israel seeking damages from French bank Credit Lyonnais claiming it knowingly provided financial services to a group linked to Hamas can proceed, a U.S. federal judge ruled on Thursday.

The suit, which made claims on behalf of 25 families of U.S. victims killed or wounded in the attacks, alleges that Credit Lyonnais, S.A. provided financial services and material support to CBSP, a French charity that raises funds for Hamas.

CBSP has been officially designated a global terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Credit Lyonnais, a unit of Credit Agricole SA rejected the claims and filed a motion to have the suit dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Charles Sifton dismissed the most serious of the plaintiff's three claims -- that the French bank "aided and abetted the murder, attempted murder, and serious bodily injury of American nationals."

However, he denied the bank's motion to dismiss claims that it "knowingly provided material support or resources to a "foreign terrorist organization" and "unlawfully and willfully provided or collected funds" for terrorist purposes.

Sifton wrote that the plaintiffs argue convincingly that "it is reasonable to believe that when the bank noticed 'unusual activity' on CBSP's accounts in 2000, in the form of large transfers of money to the West Bank and Gaza strip ... the bank would have investigated the organizations receiving the large transfers."
Twenty-two of the plaintiffs in the case were wounded in thirteen separate terrorist attacks between March of 2001 and August of 2003 that took place on buses, highways, markets and restaurants.

Nine plaintiffs represent Americans killed in the attacks.

Sifton's ruling follows a similar one last week in which he allowed a suit brought by victims and families of bombings to seek damages from Royal Bank of Scotland's Natwest to proceed. The suit, which made claims on behalf of 15 families of Americans wounded in the attacks, claimed the unit also knowingly provided services to a British Hamas-linked charity.
-

 

[Annie]

Actually the Department of Homeland Security along with Federal Bank Regulators, instituted many requirements since 9/11 that effect banks and banking transactions. They are however 'not for public consumption.' They happen as required when certain criteria are met.

I'm sure that's true for other financial institutions, but the reason your not hearing about them is for the same reason-they are not to be communicated.

I do know the only good grade the 9/11 commission gave was to tracking money.

 

[onedomino]

Actually the Department of Homeland Security along with Federal Bank Regulators, instituted many requirements since 9/11 that effect banks and banking transactions. They are however 'not for public consumption.' They happen as required when certain criteria are met.

I'm sure that's true for other financial institutions, but the reason your not hearing about them is for the same reason-they are not to be communicated.

I do know the only good grade the 9/11 commission gave was to tracking money.

The may have received a good grade, but terrorists seem to be able to move money around at will and no financial institutions are ever held responsible. $500K across the border to Gaza, terrorists with all the money they need to do their dirty work, Saudi money financing the terror cells in Iraq. If they received a good grade at "tracking" money, it seems plain that they still do nothing about it. I cannot name one financial officer (or remember reading about one) who has ever been convicted of aiding terrorist financing, here or abroad, yet we know such people are literally getting away with murder. Slush $500K across the border to Gaza and what happens? You get sued. I bet that really scares these enemy combatants.

 

[Annie]

The may have received a good grade, but terrorists seem to be able to move money around at will and no financial institutions are ever held responsible. $500K across the border to Gaza, terrorists with all the money they need to do their dirty work, Saudi money financing the terror cells in Iraq. If they received a good grade at "tracking" money, it seems plain that they still do nothing about it. I cannot name one financial officer (or remember reading about one) who has ever been convicted of aiding terrorist financing, here or abroad, yet we know such people are literally getting away with murder. Slush $500K across the border to Gaza and what happens? You get sued. I bet that really scares these enemy combatants.

Oh I anyone going to jail? I agree, 'white collar' is almost always fines.

 

[onedomino]

Oh I anyone going to jail? I agree, 'white collar' is almost always fines.

The point is that members of the financial community facilitating the transfer of terror funds are not mere criminals. This is not a matter for the police. These people are in fact enemy combatants, no matter where they reside, and should be dealt with as such. The use of military means to take out these combatants and their facilities would send send a swift and terrifying message to all these electronic barbarians. It would soon become clear that facilitating the transaction of terror money is too dangerous for those who want to remain alive. Thus we might reduce the ability of terrorists to fund their operations.

 

[Annie]

The point is that members of the financial community facilitating the transfer of terror funds are not mere criminals. This is not a matter for the police. These people are in fact enemy combatants, no matter where they reside, and should be dealt with as such. The use of military means to take out these combatants and their facilities would send send a swift and terrifying message to all these electronic barbarians. It would soon become clear that facilitating the transaction of terror money is too dangerous for those who want to remain alive. Thus we might reduce the ability of terrorists to fund their operations.

I think it's been taken quite seriously, from the start:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,,561877,00.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0308/p04s01-woeu.html

 

[onedomino]

I think it's been taken quite seriously, from the start:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,,561877,00.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0308/p04s01-woeu.html

From the Guardian article:

Who is the chancellor targeting?
He has approved the freezing of assets belonging to 46 organisations and 16 individuals. They are based on the Middle East, the United States, Africa, Sweden, Canada, Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Liechtenstein

"Freezing of assets" is monumental waste of time and is a bone thrown to the media to make it seem like action has been taken. So the terrorists lose those assets and the new Saudi IED money moves to another bank, or flows through a different account at the same bank. Their are no serious consequences for the enemy combatants employed by the financial institutions that transact terror funds. I am not talking about the freezing of assets. I am referring to the freezing of heart muscles. I am talking about treating the facilitators of terror money transactions as though they are enemy combatants on a battlefield, which indeed they are. Name one bank that has been physically taken out for transacting terror funds. Name one financial officer jailed in Gitmo. I disagree that the financial war on terror has been taken seriously. During WW2, what would have happened to a Middle Eastern bank facilitating Nazi money transactions for their campaign in Northern Africa? That bank would have ceased to exist. We are at war with terrorists, but that must seem like a joke to the enemy combatants facilitating terror money transactions throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. Money talks and terrorists walk.