Funding Evil

Last updated
Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It
Funding evil 1st ed.jpg
Cover of the first edition of Funding Evil
Author Rachel Ehrenfeld
LanguageEnglish
Genre Current affairs
PublisherBonus Books
Publication date
23 August 2003
Publication placeUnited States
Pages267
ISBN 1-56625-196-6
OCLC 52757507
363.32 22
LC Class HV6431 .E394 2003

Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It is a book written by counterterrorism researcher Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and the Economic Warfare Institute. It was published by Bonus Books of Los Angeles, California in August 2003.

Contents

Content

Ehrenfeld argues in the book that international networks are used by terrorist groups to finance terrorist activity worldwide. She describes the activities of individuals, various charities, banks, drug trafficking networks, money-laundering schemes and bribed officials, documenting the involvement of specific groups, organizations and individuals of being involved. The involvement of Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda in the drug trade is given particular attention. Ehrenfeld asserts that "it was bin Laden who managed the drug profits for the Taliban and arranged money-laundering operations with the Russian Mafiya." Ehrenfeld goes on to argue that the international community should take stronger action against terrorist funding, including imposing economic sanctions on states that fund or foster terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia, Libya, North Korea, and Malaysia. [1] Ehrenfeld's book criticizes international aid organizations as well for their often inadvertent support of terror.

Reviews

The book received a mixed reaction from reviewers. William B. Scott wrote in Aviation Week & Space Technology that the book is "brutally bipartisan and international in its bare-knuckled explanations of how political power and corporate greed have emboldened and strengthened the likes of Osama bin Laden and Yasar Arafat, while allowing future terrorists to be recruited and trained." He concluded that it "should be required reading for every elected and senior government official in the U.S. and Europe--especially those charged with counterterrorism responsibilities." Nan Goldberg reviewed the book in The Star Ledger , commenting that the book leads to the "inescapable conclusion that the West is funding its own destruction, not only in allowing its economy to become and remain dependent on oil, but also by providing a market for illegal services." [2]

Libel controversy

Cover of the second edition of Funding Evil, updated to reflect the libel case, saying "the book the Saudis don't want you to read". FundingEvil.jpg
Cover of the second edition of Funding Evil, updated to reflect the libel case, saying "the book the Saudis don't want you to read".

The book became the subject of international legal controversy when the Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz and his sons, Abdulrahman and Sultan, alleged in the book to be terrorist financiers, sued the author for libel in London. Although the book was not published in the United Kingdom, the lawsuit was made possible when 23 copies were purchased in England via online booksellers, and a chapter of the book was published for a short time on ABC TV's website. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the British courts and did not appear to defend the suit. The High Court of Justice ruled against her by default. The court ordered her and her publisher to pay £10,000 in damages to each of the three plaintiffs, with an additional £80,000 costs for a total of £110,000. Further distribution of the book from the United States was also prohibited with a previous injunction being continued. [3] Ehrenfeld was also ordered to publish a correction and apology, but had no intention of complying. [4] [5]

The judge noted that "the nature of the allegations which were made in the book... are of the most serious and defamatory kind." He added that under English law, the defendants had the opportunity to counter the suit by attempting to "prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defamatory allegations were substantially true". The Mahfouz family published a statement on their website, declaring that a number of "serious errors of fact" had been published about the family and that they "abhor violence as a way of achieving political or other objectives". [6] Mahfouz had posted similar statements on his website regarding more than 40 similar libel cases and threats to sue against authors and publishers from many countries including the U.S.

Ehrenfeld accused Mahfouz of "forum shopping", using English libel law to chill investigations ("libel tourism"). Her argument was based on the fact that Mahfouz resided in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia at the time of suit and had sued her in England as opposed to the United States because the libel law framework in England was more favorable to plaintiffs. This was rejected by Justice Eady. Mahfouz's English lawyer argued that "Our clients have brought proceedings in England because they maintain residences, transact business and have reputations to protect in this jurisdiction." [4]

Ehrenfeld's actions following the initiation of Mahfouz's lawsuit were also noted by the court. A second edition of Funding Evil was published in the US with a new introduction commenting on the lawsuit and the book's cover was amended with the tag line "The book the Saudis don't want you to read".

Counter-suit

In December 2004, before the English libel suit had concluded, Ehrenfeld pre-emptively counter-sued bin Mahfouz in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She sought a declaration that the English judgment could not be enforced in the US and that the allegations that she had made against Mahfouz were not defamatory under US law. Her complaint asserted that the Mahfouzes' litigation violated her rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing that Mahfouz "seriously chills legitimate and good-faith investigation into his behaviour. With the benefit of his vast financial resources, he has managed to silence his critics one at a time." [4] In addition, she asserted that she had not properly been served notice and lacked the financial resources to fight bin Mafouz's lawsuit in England. [6]

Her case was supported by free-press advocates in the United States, who argued that the case underlined the incompatibility of the English legal system with US constitutional rights. Sandra Baron, the executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York, argued that "it's critically important that American journalists and scholars be able to publish on topics of profound importance without having to look over their shoulders to make sure someone isn't suing them in the United Kingdom." [7] A number of major media organizations supported her case, including the Authors Guild, Forbes , the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Association of American Publishers, and Amazon. [8] [9] Major newspapers also supported the cause, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

Mahfouz sought to have the New York case dismissed, claiming that the court had no jurisdiction over him and no power to rule in the issues raised by Ehrenfeld. [4] Judge Richard C. Casey found in his favour and dismissed the case in April 2006, ruling that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz under New York state law. [10]

Ehrenfeld appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ehrenfeld's appeal was again supported by many media organisations in a consolidated amicus curiae brief, which argued that the "growing and dangerous threat of 'libel tourism' – the cynical and aggressive use of claimant-friendly libel laws in foreign jurisdictions ... has chilled and will continue to chill Dr Ehrenfeld's exercise of her free speech". [3]

The Second Circuit referred the case to the New York Court of Appeals, New York's highest appellate court, emphasizing that the case had implications for all U.S. authors and publishers whose First Amendment rights were threatened by foreign libel rulings. The Court of Appeals was asked specifically to determine whether § 302(a)(1) of New York's civil procedure rules conferred personal jurisdiction over a person who "(1) sued a New York resident in a non-U.S. jurisdiction; and (2) whose contacts with New York stemmed from the foreign lawsuit and whose success in the foreign suit resulted in acts that must be performed by the subject of the suit in New York." [11] Based on the Appellate Court's response, the Second Circuit, in its final decision, noted that if the law on New York State court jurisdiction were to change, Ehrenfeld could bring suit again.

Subsequent legislative activity

Following the Second Circuit decision, two members of the New York State Legislature, Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman (D-25) and Senator Dean Skelos (R-9) introduced a Libel Terrorism Protection Act in both houses of the Legislature (bills no. A09652 and S 6676-B) in January 2008 to amend the New York civil procedures in response to the case. Free-press advocates in the author and publisher community strongly supported the passage of the bill.

The bill passed the New York State Legislature unanimously and was signed into law on April 29, 2008. [12] The law enables New York courts to assert jurisdiction over anyone who obtains a foreign libel judgment against a New York publisher or writer, and limit enforcement to those judgments that satisfy "the freedom of speech and press protections guaranteed by both the United States and New York Constitutions". [13] The Libel Terrorism Protection Act "offers New Yorkers greater protection against libel judgments in countries whose laws are inconsistent with the freedom of speech granted by the United States Constitution". [14]

As of July 2010, six other states have passed analogs to Rachel's Law: Illinois, [15] Florida, [16] California, [17] Tennessee, [18] Maryland, [19] and Utah. [20]

A federal bill based on Rachel's Law, the SPEECH Act, was passed in the 111th Congress, by unanimous vote of both the House of Representatives (as HR 2765 in 2009) and the Senate (as S 3518 in 2010), and signed into law by President Barack Obama in August 2010. Like Rachel's law, the SPEECH Act declares foreign libel judgments to be unenforceable in the US unless they meet the criteria set forth by the First Amendment. The act contains further provisions allowing the libel plaintiff to be counter-sued for a declaration if the foreign libel judgment is "repugnant" to American constitutional law, with the possibility of recovering damages. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act</span> United States federal law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that established criteria as to whether a foreign sovereign state is immune from the jurisdiction of the United States' federal or state courts. The Act also establishes specific procedures for service of process, attachment of property and execution of judgment in proceedings against a foreign state. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a civil suit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. It was signed into law by United States President Gerald Ford on October 21, 1976.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and thus have attracted plaintiffs to file new cases there, even if there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction.

Rachel Ehrenfeld is an American political commentator on terrorism and corruption-related topics, and serves as director of a conservative think tank, the American Center for Democracy, and its Economic Warfare Institute.

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.

<i>Alms for Jihad</i> 2006 book by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins

Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World is a 2006 book co-written by American authors J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator in Sudan, and historian Robert O. Collins which discusses the role of Islamic charities in financing terrorism.

Khalid bin Mahfouz was a Saudi Arabian billionaire, banker, businessman, investor and former chairman of the National Commercial Bank (NCB). Khalid is the son of Salem Bin Mahfouz, a Saudi entrepreneur who rose from being a small-time moneychanger to becoming the founder of the NCB, the first private Saudi bank.

Sir David Eady is a retired High Court judge in England and Wales. As a judge, he is known for having presided over many high-profile libel and privacy cases.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yassin Kadi</span> Saudi Arabian businessman (born 1955)

Yassin Abdullah Kadi is a Saudi Arabian businessman. A multi-millionaire from Jeddah, Kadi trained as an architect in Chicago, Illinois. He is the son-in-law of Sheikh Ahmed Salah Jamjoom, a former Saudi Arabian government minister with close ties to the Saudi royal family.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SPEECH Act</span> 2010 U.S. law limiting foreign defamation cases

The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act is a 2010 federal statutory law in the United States that makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless either the foreign legislation applied offers at least as much protection as the U.S. First Amendment, or the defendant would have been found liable even if the case had been heard under U.S. law.

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech. The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable. It expanded that principle from its landmark defamation holding in New York Times v. Sullivan.

<i>The Libel Tourist</i> 2007 American film

The Libel Tourist is a short-form documentary film about how the advantageous litigative environments that exist in certain jurisdictions are used by powerful individuals to suppress unfavorable information about them by bringing forth unjustified libel suits against writers and publishers. The seeking out of such favorable environments, most notably the courts of England and Wales, has been dubbed libel tourism.

The Muwaqaf Foundation was a Saudi charity that operated internationally during the 1990s. Its leadership and activities have been tied to terrorist activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act</span> United States law vetoed by President Obama but overridden

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) is a law enacted by the United States Congress that narrows the scope of the legal doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity. It amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in regards to civil claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism on U.S. soil.

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case from the United States Supreme Court which addressed the issue of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank facilitated terrorist attacks by transferring funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East, some of which passed through Arab Bank's offices in New York City.

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Court held that civil service of a lawsuit against the government of Sudan was invalid because the civil complaints and summons had been sent to the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C. rather than to the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum.

<i>Acree v. Republic of Iraq</i> United States legal case

Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41, was a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. U.S. military personnel who had been tortured by Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War sued for damages, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) made state sponsors of terror liable. Iraq never contested the lawsuit, but the U.S. federal government intervened. The Court of Appeals ultimately decided against the plaintiffs, saying that the FSIA did not create new causes of action against foreign states. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs' appeal.

References

  1. ↑ William B. Scott, "In Review; Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed--and How to Stop it By Rachel Ehrenfeld". Aviation Week & Space Technology, Volume 160, No. 3, 19 January 2004, p. 420
  2. ↑ Nan Goldberg, "What we're reading in November". The Star-Ledger, 2 November 2003, p. 5
  3. 1 2 David Pallister, "US author mounts 'libel tourism' challenge". The Guardian , 15 November 2007
  4. 1 2 3 4 Dominic Kennedy, "Libel and money - why British courts are choice of the world". The Times , 19 May 2005
  5. ↑ "English High Court awards substantial damages to Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz and his sons", Al Bawaba, 16 June 2005
  6. 1 2 Larry Neumeister, "Book Author Sues Saudi Billionaire". New York Sun. Associated Press, 10 December 2004
  7. ↑ Sara Ivry, MediaTalk; Seeking U.S. Turf for a Free-Speech Fight . New York Times , 4 April 2005
  8. ↑ Brendan O'Neill, "A town called Sue". New Statesman , 24 July 2006
  9. ↑ Samuel A. Abady & Harvey Silverglate, "'Libel tourism' and the war on terror". Boston Globe , 7 November 2006
  10. ↑ Memorandum and Order of April 25, 2006, Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz, United States District Court Southern District of New York, 04 Civ. 9641 (RCC)
  11. ↑ Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz, 20 December 2007
  12. ↑ James Oliphant, "Saudi wields British law against U.S. author". Chicago Tribune, 17 March 2008
  13. ↑ Samuel A. Abady & Harvey Silverglate, "Rachel's Law: NY's 'Libel-Tourism' Fix". New York Post, 25 February 2008
  14. ↑ Governor Paterson Signs Legislation Protecting New Yorkers Against Infringement Of First Amendment Rights By Foreign Libel Judgments Archived 2009-02-20 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ↑ Illinois
  16. ↑ Florida
  17. ↑ California [ permanent dead link ]
  18. ↑ Tennessee
  19. ↑ Maryland Archived March 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  20. ↑ Utah Archived June 30, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  21. ↑ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ223/html/PLAW-111publ223.htm

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.