Saudi interest in America

by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
Washington Times | January 15, 2006

Many are aware of widespread Saudi investments in the United States, but few know how potentially harmful they are. Moreover, U.S. policy-makers remain unaware of this grave danger.
On Sept. 28, 2001, after the attacks on the United States, Osama bin Laden called for financial jihad against the United States, and on Dec. 27, 2001, he called on jihadists “to look for [and strike] the key pillars of the U.S. economy.” Although now the Saudis claim bin Laden is their enemy, many of them continue to follow his agenda.
Religious and ideological support has been also provided by Hussein Shihata, a leading Sunni scholar of Islamic Economy at Cairo’s al-Azhar University. Mr. Shihata’s July 10, 2002, fatwa says: “We do not use the term ‘economic jihad’ as a mere motto or a resounding slogan with no action. Rather, we mean by it a practical jihad that requires action to turn it into an effective and concrete reality. The aim behind that is to benefit all Muslims and to challenge the aggression staged by the U.S. and Jews against Islam and Muslims.”
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who claims to abhor bin Laden, seems nevertheless eager to follow his agenda. In an interview with Arab News in May 2002, the prince said that if the Arabs “unite through economic interests,” they would achieve influence over the U.S. decision-makers. Since government sources estimate Saudi holdings in the United States at $400 billion to $800 billion, the matter warrants public attention.
The Saudi agenda extends far beyond policy-makers. In the late 1990s, the privately owned Massachusetts technology company, Ptech, designed software used to develop enterprise blueprints that held every important detail of a given concern. The company was financed with more than $22 million, by Saudi multi-millionaire Yasin al Qadi, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. The Saudis thus gained access to strategic information about many major U.S. corporations such as SYSCO, ENRON, and the U.S. Departments of Defense, Treasury, Justice, Energy, and even the White House. The extent of the damage, if it was investigated, remains a mystery.
Meanwhile, substantial Saudi and Gulf financial contributions “to bring the proper message to America’s brightest minds,” are pouring into U.S. educational institutions through Arab and Islamic centers and professorial chairs. Last month the prince gave $20 million each to Georgetown and Harvard universities. According to the Center for Religious Freedom, the Saudis also supply textbooks for public libraries, schools and colleges, and provide the content concerning Islam to some U.S. textbook publishers.
The Saudis’ potential influence on U.S. and international media was recently illustrated by the prince’s purchase of 5.6 percent of voting shares in News Corp., the world’s largest publisher of English newspapers. Moreover, Reuters reported on Dec. 5 that the prince announced his plan to “spread the right message” via a new television channel, “The Message,” to broadcast to the U.S. within two years.
Yet, information regarding the magnitude of the Saudi economic infiltration into the United States is secret. The U.S. Treasury’s interpretation of the census law, supported by a 1982 court decision, shields this data from the public. On Oct. 27, 1982, the American Jewish Congress (AJC) was denied information requested under its own FOIA inquiry, by the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. (Civ. A. No. 81-1745). The AJC litigated its FOIA case up to the Supreme Court, but the government won.
Indeed, filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Commerce is useless. FOIA Director Burton H. Reist stated in December that this data “is protected by Title 13, United States Code, Section 9, which requires that census records be used solely for statistical purposes and also makes these records confidential.” Furthermore, FOIA “exempts from disclosure records that are made confidential by statute.” In other words, the government wants this information kept secret.
Under the “International Investment & Trade in Services Survey Act,” the U.S. Treasury Department tracks foreign portfolio, and Commerce tracks direct investments. This information is unavailable for Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States, following their request that the details be suppressed “to avoid disclosure of data of individual companies.” For example, under the heading “Foreign holdings of U.S. long-term securities, by country,” Treasury aggregates all eight “Middle East oil exporters.” A Treasury Department official said that this aggregation is a “Treasury policy,” and justifies the non-disclosure on grounds that this information could “harm national security and foreign relations.”
While the U.S. government seeks to spread American democratic values, including transparency and accountability, it denies its own citizens and policy makers the same. In view of the stated Arab and Muslim strategy to subvert the U.S economy, one wonders why the publication of Saudi financial interests in the United States would harm national security and foreign relations. It seems that the secrecy surrounding Saudi investments in the United States is what may well threaten our national security. Continue reading “Saudi interest in America”


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Inviting Enemies and Rejecting Friends

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 11, 2006

While welcoming outspoken Islamists like Moroccan Mustafa El Khalfi and Malaysian Former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim into the U.S. on “fellowships” and as “visiting scholars,” the State Department has repeatedly denied visas to an Israeli billionaire philanthropist and ally in the U.S. War on Terror.

The State Department had no qualms admitting El Khalfi, whose Islamist activities are well documented. At the early age of 15, he joined Morocco’s Islamist party Jama Islamiya, which is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. More recently he edited Morocco’s key Islamist newspaper, At-Tajdid, which condones Islamist terrorism and anti-American actions.

Likewise, the State Department found nothing wrong with Anwar Ibrahim, who co-founded the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated and U.S., based International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Ibrahim also strongly supports the pro-Jihad doctrine advanced by Qatar-based radical Muslim cleric Yusuf Qaradawi, who is banned from the U.S.

Yet, the Israeli philanthropist, Michael Cherney, who has donated more than $20 million over the last decade to anti-terror activities and studies, and support for terror victims, has been repeatedly denied entry to the U.S. Cherney’s crime? He did not commit any. Unlike most innocent people, he was forced to prove his innocence: his business success and wealth attracted crooks who attempted to extort hundreds of millions from him. When they failed, they went on an international “smear offensive,” and even attempted to kill him. Continue reading “Inviting Enemies and Rejecting Friends”


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

The UN Gives Hamas a Raise

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 6, 2006

The decision taken at the end of December 2005, by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to provide a large increase in salaries for its thousands of workers, contributes directly to HAMAS’ coffers. The significant raise takes effect this month.The 7.5 – 21% increase for UNRWA’s workers was ostensibly enacted to bring their salaries closer to the much higher level of Palestinian Authority employees. UNRWA is “the second biggest employer” in Gaza after the Palestinian Authority.

The UNRWA raise also has had the dire effect of increasing UN funding to HAMAS. Most UNRWA workers in Gaza — in fact 90 percent — voted for HAMAS in their 2003 union elections. HAMAS also runs the union’s executive committee, and controls 23 of the 27 seats in of the workers’ representatives in the different sectors, such as teachers, clerks, services, etc.

Since HAMAS deducts membership fees of its activists from their UNRWA salaries, the UNWRA raise contributes directly to the HAMAS budget. Continue reading “The UN Gives Hamas a Raise”


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

International and comparative perspectives on defamation, free speech and privacy

by Russell L. Weaver* and David F. Partlett**
New York Law School Law Review | 2005/2006

* Professor of Law and Distinguished University Scholar, University of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law.

** Vice President, Dean, and Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Text: 3,772 words
SUMMARY:
… More than four decades have elapsed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and time has given way to deeper reflection. … Sullivan involved the free speech rights of activists in the civil rights movement and the Alabama defamation law challenged in Sullivan had little salience in the vortex of that struggle. … ” Professor Eugenie Brouillet in Free Speech, Reputation, and the Canadian Balance also focuses on the Canadian approach to reputation and speech and agrees that Canada has struck a different balance than the United States. … In our article Defamation, Free Speech, and Democratic Governance, we discuss how Australia and England rejected Sullivan in favor of a speech-enhancing doctrine based on extensions of common law qualified privilege. … ” The article examines how the Australian and English extensions of common law qualified privilege affect media reporting and contrasts their impact with that of the Sullivan decision. … Professor Clive Walker in Reforming the Crime of Libel focuses on criminal libel rather than civil libel. … Today, however, they are of greater importance as we see that ideas about reputation, privacy, and free speech are fluid and subject to much practical contention. …
Citation:
n48. Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, 2005 WL 696769 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2005) (granting a motion to effect service of process). See also Sara Ivry, Seeking U.S. Turf for a Free-Speech Flight, N.Y. Times, Apr. 4, 2005, at C8; Dominic Kennedy, Libel and Money – Why British Courts are Choice of the World, Times (UK), May 19, 2005, at 6; Dominic Kennedy, Judge Attacks Author Over Libel Tourism Allegation, Times (UK), June 16, 2005, at 24; Alyssa A. Lappen, Libel Wars, FrontPage Mag., July 18, 2005; Jeffrey Toobin, Let’s Go: Libel, The New Yorker, Aug. 8, 2005, at 36.


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.