Most Wanted Terrorist Dead

Bin Laden Killed in U.S. 'Targeted Operation'

The mastermind of the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children has been killed.

President Barack Obama made the announcement late Sunday evening, May 1, in a televised address to the world. He said he had been briefed by the intelligence community last August that bin Laden was in hiding “within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.” Over the intervening months, intelligence agencies worked to confirm the intelligence. Then last week, President Obama determined there was enough intelligence to take action.

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan,” the President said from the East Room of the White House. “A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.”

Well before the events of 9/11, bin Laden had openly declared war on the U.S. and was committed to killing innocents. His al-Qaeda group was responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. The attacks killed over 200 people. Bin Laden was indicted for his role in planning the attacks and added to the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

Intelligence agencies quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by bin Laden’s terrorist organization, and in October 2001, his name was added to the U.S. Department of State’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.

"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome,” President Obama said. “The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.”

-----

Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP

Statement of National Security Advisor General James Jones on Wikileaks

The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents – the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted. These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

The documents posted by Wikileaks reportedly cover a period of time from January 2004 to December 2009. On December 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al Qaeda and Taliban safe-havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years. This shift in strategy addressed challenges in Afghanistan that were the subject of an exhaustive policy review last fall. We know that serious challenges lie ahead, but if Afghanistan is permitted to slide backwards, we will again face a threat from violent extremist groups like al Qaeda who will have more space to plot and train. That is why we are now focused on breaking the Taliban’s momentum and building Afghan capacity so that the Afghan government can begin to assume responsibility for its future. The United States remains committed to a strong, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan.

Since 2009, the United States and Pakistan have deepened our important bilateral partnership. Counter-terrorism cooperation has led to significant blows against al Qaeda’s leadership. The Pakistani military has gone on the offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, at great cost to the Pakistani military and people. The United States and Pakistan have also commenced a Strategic Dialogue, which has expanded cooperation on issues ranging from security to economic development. Pakistan and Afghanistan have also improved their bilateral ties, most recently through the completion of a Transit-Trade Agreement. Yet the Pakistani government – and Pakistan’s military and intelligence services – must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups. The balance must shift decisively against al Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups, while supporting the aspirations of the Pakistani people.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter:  @GAFrontPage

President Bashir Tests New Obama Policy on Sudan

/PRNewswire/ -- With the news that President Omar al-Bashir plans to travel to Turkey and Egypt in the coming days, President Obama faces the first test of his recently announced Sudan policy.

The Enough Project at the Center for American Progress, the Save Darfur Coalition, and the Genocide Intervention Network jointly released the following statement in reaction:

If President Obama and Secretary Clinton are unwilling to engage in personal diplomacy at the highest level to ensure that a wanted war criminal does not continue to travel with impunity to the capitals of key U.S. allies, it will send a powerful message that the administration isn't serious about implementing the Sudan strategy it just announced.

John Norris, Executive Director of the Enough Project, noted, "For Turkey, a member of NATO and an aspiring member of the European Union, to welcome President Bashir is frankly baffling. If Turkey is truly committed to the values that would make membership of the European Union possible, it should quickly make clear that President Bashir is absolutely unwelcome."

Jerry Fowler, President of the Save Darfur Coalition, added, "President Bashir's travel is a test of the administration's resolve on Sudan. If the President and Secretary of State let it happen without objection, Khartoum will get the message that the newly stated commitment to multilateral leadership is hollow. And for Turkey, it's an opportunity to align itself with the E.U., most Latin American countries, and the emerging practice in sub-Saharan Africa: Convey to Bashir that he shouldn't come unless he wants to risk arrest upon landing."

Sam Bell, Executive Director of Genocide Intervention Network, added, "Given the depth and breadth of U.S. engagement with Egypt, it is striking that the situation in Sudan - and Bashir's status as a war criminal - don't appear t be part of the recent conversation among senior officials. How can the administration expect to effectively implement its new plan if it doesn't make Sudan a top priority?"

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

'Time is Running Out' to Prevent Nuclear Iran

/PRNewswire/ -- Former U.S. Senators Daniel Coats and Charles Robb and General (ret.) Charles Wald, members of the Bipartisan Policy Center's (BPC) National Security Initiative, today released a report warning that "time is running out" to prevent a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. Concluding that "the Islamic Republic will be able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2010," the report, entitled "Meeting the Challenge: Time is Running Out," calls on the Obama Administration to adopt a more forceful, phased strategy towards Iran, including: accelerated, defined diplomatic engagement; more "coercive" international sanctions; and, if Iranian defiance continues unabated, potential surgical military action.

Remarking on the need to update the original report, the authors jointly stated, "We are alarmed by how much progress Iran has made toward obtaining nuclear weapons capability and remain skeptical about the sincerity of Iran's new-found willingness to negotiate. We hope that the bipartisan strategy we propose can help guide our government to resolve this difficult and urgent national security challenge."

Emphasizing that a nuclear weapons-capable Iran would be "strategically untenable," the authors argue that the current U.S. approach does not reflect the rapid progress of Iran's nuclear program. It is this advancing Iranian threat and the desire to avoid a possible Israeli military strike, the authors argue, that should drive U.S. policy--not concerns over Iran's political turmoil.

The authors applaud President Obama's attempts at diplomatic outreach and call upon the international community to join together in imposing sanctions on Iran's banking and energy sectors following next week's G-20 summit. Noting that Russia and China are unlikely to support such sanctions, the report states that the efficacy of sanctions will largely depend upon the willingness of key European nations to curtail their commercial ties to Iran.

Should increased pressure on Tehran not yield credible progress by the end of 2009, the authors recommend that "the Obama Administration should elevate consideration of the military option." They argue that "the U.S. military is more than capable of launching a devastating strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities," and that "only the credible threat of a U.S. military strike will make a peaceful resolution of the crisis possible."

This report is an update of a BPC report issued in September 2008, entitled "Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development," that was the result of a high-level bipartisan task force. The entire group could not be reconstituted, as some members are now serving in the Obama Administration. The co-chairs of the original task force--Senators Daniel Coats and Charles Robb--together with General (ret.) Charles Wald, felt that the political, technological, diplomatic, and military developments of the past year needed to be addressed.

Calling on the U.S. political leadership to make hard choices, the authors argue "we cannot shirk responsibilities that will protect the national security interests of our country."

For more information on "Meeting the Challenge: Time is Running Out," or the BPC's National Security Initiative, please visit: www.bipartisanpolicy.org/.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia

Obama Administration Enables Saudi Princes to Escape Accountability for Material Support for 9/11 Terror Attacks, Families Charge

/PRNewswire / -- On the day that President Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent actions by his administration would enable five of the king's closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In response to the administration's action, the 9/11 families released allegations made in 2002 of the Saudi royal family's sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have been ignored by the Obama Administration.

On May 29, the president's top lawyer before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, filed a brief arguing that it would be "unwarranted" for the Supreme Court to even hear cases brought by the 9/11 families charging that five Saudi princes knowingly and intentionally provided financial support to al Qaeda waging war on America. By urging the high court to not review lower court decisions dismissing these cases, the Obama Administration took the side of the Saudi princes over thousands of family members and survivors of the 9/11 attacks seeking justice and accountability in U.S. courts.

"This is a betrayal of our fundamentally American right to have our day in court," said Mike Low of Batesville, Ark., father of Sara Low, an American Airlines flight attendant who died on board Flight 11. "It sacrifices the principles of justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies, in order to accommodate the political pleadings of a foreign government on behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy."

"With this filing, the Obama Administration has constructed a convoluted legal rationale to justify a political decision to curry favor with the Saudi royal family," said Ron Motley, counsel for the 9/11 families. "However, the legal straw house they built collapses with the faintest breeze of logic, legal analysis, or common sense."

"We trust that the Supreme Court, after it has reviewed the law, the facts and the evidence, will reject the Obama Administration's wrongheaded opinion and agree to give the 9/11 family members the day in court they deserve," Motley said.

To illustrate both the injustice of the Obama Administration's Supreme Court filing and the many holes in its legal reasoning, the family members released the specific allegations they originally made on what the princes did to provide financial and material support to Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in the years and months leading up to September 11, 2001.

Specifically, the families' lawsuit alleges that:

-- Prince Turki al Faisal al Saud, past head of Saudi intelligence,
coordinated Saudi financial and logistical support for al Qaeda, Osama
bin Laden and the Taliban. In July 1998, Prince Turki brokered an
agreement between these parties in which the Saudis provided al Qaeda
and the Taliban with generous financial assistance in exchange for a
pledge by bin Laden and the Taliban that al Qaeda would not attack the
Saudi royal family.(1)
-- Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud headed the Islamic bank Dar al Maal
al Islami, which provided global financial services and financing to
al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.(2)
-- Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz al Saud, whose responsibilities included
overseeing Islamic charitable funding in Saudi Arabia, funded al Qaeda
through personal contributions to Islamic charities known to support
bin Laden and his terrorist organization.(3)
-- Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al Saud, who has long supported Palestinian
suicide bombers, provided pay-off money to al Qaeda. His oversight of
al Qaeda front charity al Haramain allowed it to support bin Laden and
al Qaeda unabated.(4)

-- Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud has a long history of funding
Islamic extremists through his work as chairman of the General
Donation Committee for Afghanistan. In this capacity, Prince Salman
made substantial personal contributions to al Qaeda front charities
with the full knowledge the charities were misappropriating funds and
involved in terrorist activities.(5)

(More detailed allegations are contained in the attached chart.)


In the face of these allegations, Motley charged that the legal flaws in the Obama Administration's filing are all the more egregious.

For example, the solicitor general concedes that the Saudi princes as individual officials are not entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). But even though the government has never previously expressed any notion of offering the Saudi princes any immunity for their alleged terrorist involvement, the administration urges that the Supreme Court should nonetheless treat the Princes as though they are immune anyway because of vague "non-statutory principles articulated by the Executive." This makes clear the Obama Administration is more concerned with the foreign relations consequences of making the Saudi princes answer for their donations to al Qaeda than with allowing the 9/11 families their fair day in court to address the princes' accountability for their conduct.

Moreover, even if the Saudi princes knowingly and intentionally gave money to al Qaeda waging war on America, the solicitor general argued that does not qualify for the "domestic tort exception" to sovereign immunity because the Saudi Princes did not give their money "within the United States." The solicitor general says it is not enough if the Saudis gave money to al Qaeda only from abroad. According to the solicitor general's argument, in order to strip immunity from the Saudi princes, "the foreign state's act or omission -- not that of any third party -- must occur in the United States."

The solicitor general further argues that U.S. courts cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the Saudi Princes who gave money to al Qaeda because they were not "primary wrongdoer[s]" -- according to the solicitor general -- as they engaged in only "indirect funding of al Qaeda." But excusing the princes as not "primary wrongdoers" is in direct conflict with a recent Seventh Circuit ruling in the terror litigation context.(6) In this case, known as Boim v. Holy Land Foundation, the Seventh Circuit held that all those who donate money to known terrorist groups are themselves engaging in terrorism -- and thus "primary violators" subject to "primary liability" under the Anti-Terrorism Act section 2333. Boim further cautioned: "Nor should donors to terrorism be able to escape liability because terrorists and their supporters launder donations through a chain of intermediate organizations. Donor A gives to innocent-appearing organization B which gives to innocent-appearing organization C which gives to Hamas. As long as A either knows or is reckless in failing to discover that donations to B end up with Hamas, A is liable."(7)

The administration filing's bottom line, according to Motley, is that an official of any foreign country not "designated as a state sponsor of terrorism" is immune from suit as long as that official gave money "outside the United States" to terrorists -- even where those terrorists are waging a declared war causing massive death and destruction inside the United States. "This is an absurd misinterpretation of the law that, if carried to its logical extreme, could let all of al Qaeda's bankrollers off the hook," Motley charged. "If allowed to stand as the Obama administration's brief urges, the lower court's decision would allow terrorist financiers to stand at the borders of our nation providing all means of terrorist support, while snubbing their noses at our time honored judicial system of accountability."

The plaintiffs further allege that "Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have publicly and proudly proclaimed direct responsibility for [prior] multiple atrocities in furtherance of international terrorism. Direct attacks on Americans intensified in 1998 after Osama bin Laden issued this 'fatwa,' stating: 'We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.'"(8)

Motley said he was especially shocked that the solicitor general justified not holding foreign officials who give money to the 9/11 terrorists to account in an American court by repeating the same error made by the late District Judge Richard Conway Casey and the Second Circuit when they ruled plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations were "inadequa[te]" and "conclusory" to show the Princes knew that they were funneling money to al Qaeda. "This is utter nonsense," Motley said, noting the specific detail of the allegations made, all of which allegedly show that the princes gave money to al Qaeda waging declared jihad on America, knowing that al Qaeda was targeting death and destruction on America.(9)

"What the solicitor general and the lower courts ignore is that the plaintiffs brought this suit to hold the defendants -- a handful of royals, other financiers, bin Laden, al Qaeda, and certain charities, banks and other organizations they own and control -- responsible for this insidious form of terrorism which cloaks itself behind the face of royal state titles and legitimacy," Motley said.

Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network do not exist in a vacuum, he explained. They could not plan, train and act on such a massive scale without significant financial power, coordination and backing.(10)

Select sources reporting Saudi Arabia is an important funding source for Islamic Extremism:

-- United States Congress Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and
United States Congress House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities
before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001: Report
of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and U.S. House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Together with Additional
Views.
-- Terrorist Financing. Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by
the Council on Foreign Relations, October 2002. Available at
www.cfr.org/pdf/Terrorist_Financing_TF.pdf and Update on the Global
Campaign Against Terrorist Financing. Second Report of an Independent
Task Force on Terrorist Financing Sponsored by the Council on Foreign
Relations, June 15, 2004. See
www.cfr.org/pdf/Revised_Terrorist_Financing.pdf.
-- Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of
the Committee on International Relations House of Representatives One
Hundred Eighth Congress Second Session March 24, 2004 Serial No.
108-109.
-- International Affairs: Information on U.S. Agencies' Efforts to
Address Islamic Extremism, GAO-05-852 (Washington: D.C.: United States
Government Accountability Office, Sept. 2005).
-- Iraq Study Group (U.S.), et al. The Iraq Study Group Report. 1st
authorized ed. New York: Vintage Books, 2006.
-- Testimony of Lee S. Wolosky Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs September
18, 2007.
-- U.S. State Department 2007 International Narcotics Control Strategy
Report.
-- Testimony of U.S. Department of the Treasury Undersecretary for
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart A. Levey before the Senate
Finance Committee, April 1, 2008.

-- H. R. 1288 Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2009 111th Congress 1st
Session.





Allegations that the Saudi Princes Named as Defendants
Provided Financial and Material Support to al Qaeda

Source: Third Amended Complaint, Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. vs. Al
Baraka Investment & Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-CV-9849
(GBD) as consolidated in In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001,
Case No. 03-MDL-1570 (GBD), paragraphs 340, 344-346, 348-350.
This can be viewed at www.motleyrice.com/terrorism/relevant_documents.asp.

TAC Paragraph, Specific Allegation
Page
97-99, pp. Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud was the CEO of the
244-245; 342, Islamic bank Dar al Maal al Islami ("DMI") which
p. 309; 364, provided financing and financial services to al Qaeda
p. 315

340, p. 309 Prince Turki al Faisal al Saud had an ongoing
relationship with Osama bin Laden from the time that
they first met in Islamabad, Pakistan at the Saudi
embassy, during the Soviet Union's occupation of
Afghanistan.

342, p. 309-310 Prince Abdullah al Faisal bin Abdulaziz al Saud,
Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al Saud and Prince Salman
bin Abdul Aziz al Saud

have provided material support to Osama bin Laden and
al Qaeda. They also aided, abetted and materially
sponsored OBL and al Qaeda

344, p. 310 Prince Turki, who headed the Royal Families
intelligence service for 25 years and met personally
with Osama bin Laden at least 5 times, guided the
Saudi intelligence service to provide substantial
financial and material support to the Taliban in or
about 1995.

345, p. 310 Al Qaeda financier Mohammed Zouaydi had close
financial ties to Prince Turki and Prince Mohammed al
Faisal.

346, pp. 310-311 According to a senior Taliban official, Prince Turki
was the facilitator of money transfers to the Taliban
and al Qaeda.

347. p. 311 In 1996, a group of Saudi princes met with prominent
Saudi businessmen in Paris and agreed to continue
financially contributing and otherwise supporting
Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.

348, p. 311 In July of 1998, a meeting occurred in Kandahar,
Afghanistan that led to an agreement between certain
Saudis and the Taliban. The participants were Prince
Turki, the Taliban leaders, and senior Pakistani
intelligence officers of the ISI and representatives
of Osama bin Laden. The agreement reached stipulated
that Osama bin Laden and his followers would not use
the infrastructure in Afghanistan to subvert the
royal families' control of Saudi government. In
return, the Saudis would make sure that no demands
for the extradition of terrorist individuals, such as
Osama bin Laden, and/or for the closure of terrorist
facilities and camps. Prince Turki also promised to
provide oil and generous financial assistance to both
the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After the
meeting, 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar
for the Taliban, still bearing Dubai license plates.

349, p. 311 Prince Turki was instrumental in arranging a meeting
in Kandahar between Iraqi senior intelligence
operative, the Ambassador to Turkey Faruq al-Hijazi,
and Osama bin Laden, in December of 1998.

350, p. 311 Saudi Intelligence, directed by Prince Turki until
August 2001, served as a facilitator of Osama bin
Laden's network of charities, foundations, and other
funding sources.

354, p. 312 Prince Sultan has been involved in the sponsorship of
international terrorism through the IIRO and other
Saudi-funded charities.

357-358. p. 313 King Fahd set up a Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs,
headed by his brother Prince Sultan to centralize,
supervise and review aid requests from Islamic
groups. This council was established to control the
charity financing and look into ways of distributing
donations to eligible Muslim groups. Consequently, as
Chairman of the Supreme Council, Prince Sultan could
not have ignored the ultimate destinations of
charitable funding, and could not have overlooked the
role of the Saudi charitable entities identified
herein in financing the al Qaeda terrorist
organization.

359, pp. 313-314 Despite that responsibility and knowledge, Prince
Sultan personally funded several Islamic charities
over the years that sponsor, aid, abet or materially
support Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda: the
International Islamic Relief Organization (and its
financial fund Sanabel el-Khair), al-Haramain, Muslim
World League, and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.
Despite that responsibility and knowledge, Prince
Sultan personally funded several Islamic charities
over the years that sponsor, aid, abet or materially
support Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda: the
International Islamic Relief Organization (and its
financial fund Sanabel el-Khair), al-Haramain, Muslim
World League, and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

360, p. 314 Prince Sultan's role in the IIRO's financing is of
significance. Since the IIRO's creation in 1978,
Prince Sultan participated by donations and various
gifts to the charity. In 1994 alone, he donated
$266,652 to the Islamic International Relief
Organization. Since 1994, the amount funneled by
Prince Sultan into IIRO is reported to be $2,399,868.
Prince Sultan's role in directly contributing to and
in the oversight of IIRO evidences his material
sponsorship, aiding and abetting of international
terrorism. Prince Sultan maintains close relations
with the IIRO organization headquarters and knew or
should have known these assets were being diverted to
al Qaeda.

361-362, p. 314 Prince Sultan is also a regular donator to the World
Assembly of Muslim Youth ( "WAMY"). WAMY was founded
in 1972 in a Saudi effort to prevent the "corrupting"
ideas of the western world influencing young Muslims.
With official backing it grew to embrace 450 youth
and student organizations with 34 offices worldwide.
WAMY has been officially identified as a "suspected
terrorist organization" by the FBI since 1996 and has
been the subject of numerous governmental
investigations for terrorist activities.

370-371, p. 317; Prince Abdullah al Faisal is the majority owner of
372-373, p. 317 Alfaisaliah Group, also known as al Faisal Group
Holding Co. According to FBI records 9/11 hijacker
Hani Saleh H. Hanjour, his brother Abdulrahman Saleh
Hanjour, living in Tucson, Arizona, and 9/11 suspect
Abdal Monem Zelitny had registered addresses in Taif,
Saudi Arabia that correspond with an Alfaisaliah
Group branch office.

374-375, p. 317 Prince Abdullah al Faisal's accountant in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia was Defendant Muhammed Galeb Kalaje
Zouaydi, convicted in Spain for financing al Qaeda
operations in Europe. Zouaydi set up Spanish
companies established during the time he was staying
in Saudi Arabia and working for Prince Abdullah al
Faisal, between 1996 and 2000. Zouaydi laundered
Saudi money through Spain to an al Qaeda cell in
Germany. Eye witnesses place Zouaydi in Prince
Abdullah al Faisal's office in Jeddah.

381, p. 319 Prince Naif, who has a long history of supported for
Palestinian suicide martyrs and Palestinian terrorist
organizations, has provided material support to al
Qaeda, including providing monetary payoffs to al
Qaeda.

382, p. 319 Prince Naif, who is the Saudi Minister of Interior and
heads the Saudi Committee for Relief to Afghans,
supervised the activities of Defendant charity Al
Haramain Foundation, which materially supported al
Qaeda and the Taliban.

392-399, pp. In 1993, Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud founded
321-323 Saudi High Commission charity. The charity's Bosnian
offices were found to have sponsored al Qaeda members
and materially supported al Qaeda.

400, pp. 323-324 Prince Salman has a history of funding Islamic
extremism. In 1980, Prince Salman was named Chairman
of the General Donation Committee for Afghanistan.

401, p. 324 In 1999, Prince Salman made a donation of $400,000
during a fund-raising event organized for Bosnia
Herzegovina and Chechnya by Defendants International
Islamic Relief Organization, World Assembly of Muslim
Youths, and Al-Haramain Foundation.

404-407, Despite evidence of misappropriation of charitable
pp.324-325 funds by directors of the Saudi High Commissions
Bosnian chapter, Prince Salman knowingly failed to
take appropriate action regarding the management and
distribution of funds.


(1)Third Amended Complaint, Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. vs. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-CV-9849 (GBD) as consolidated in In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, Case No. 03-MDL-1570 (GBD), paragraphs 340, 344-346, 348-350. This can be viewed at www.motleyrice.com/terrorism/relevant_documents.asp.

(2)TAC paragraphs 97-99, 242, 244-245, 364.
(3)TAC paragraphs 354, 357-362.
(4)TAC paragraphs 342, 381-382.
(5)TAC paragraphs 392-401, 404-407.
(6)See Boim v. Holy Land Found., 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
(7)Id. at 701-702.
(8)TAC, p. 12.
(9)TAC.
(10)TAC.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Obama Gives Hope to Terrorists

TR Note: A good explanation of the mindset of Islamic terrorists is in this story. Thought you'd want to have a better understanding.

President Barack Hussein Obama’s reported dialogue with Islamic terrorists will have dire consequences for the security of the United States and more ominous consequences for survival of Israel and the balance of power in the Middle East. At best, his outreach to Muslim terrorists is a clear example of his complete lack of understanding of what motivates Muslim terrorists. At worst, it represents an almost unthinkable level of complicity with regard to the existence of Israel and the balance of power in the Middle East......

http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=184

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Leading Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organizations Urge Obama Not to Create On-Shore Guantanamo System

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Four leading civil liberties and human rights organizations today urged President-elect Obama to implement "an unqualified return to America's established system of justice for detaining and prosecuting suspects" when he fulfills his pledge to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and military commissions. In a letter delivered to the presidential transition team, the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch state that they "categorically oppose the creation of any other ad-hoc illegal detention system or 'third way' that permits the executive branch to suspend due process and hold suspected terrorists without charge or trial, essentially moving Guantanamo on-shore."

The full text of the letter is as follows:

Dear President-elect Obama:


As heads of four prominent civil liberties and human rights organizations, we wish to convey our uniform position on the steps we believe should be taken once you fulfill your pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Our groups firmly advocate an unqualified return to America's established system of justice for detaining and prosecuting suspects. We categorically oppose the creation of any other ad-hoc illegal detention system or "third way" that permits the executive branch to suspend due process and hold suspected terrorists without charge or trial, essentially moving Guantanamo on-shore.

As you know, the Geneva Conventions allow for the detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield until the cessation of international armed conflict. But what is new -- and altogether radical -- is the notion that a wartime detention model can be applied to something as amorphous as a "war on terror" that lacks a definable enemy, geographical boundary, or the prospect of ending anytime soon. If a conflict exists everywhere and forever, empowering the government to detain combatants until the end of hostilities takes on a whole new and deeply disturbing meaning.

We are confident that when you take office, you will immediately set a date certain for closing Guantanamo. The new Justice Department should conduct a fresh review of all detainee records to determine whether there is legitimate evidence of criminal activity. Where there is not, detainees should be repatriated to their home countries for trial or release. If there is a risk of torture or abuse in their home countries, they should be transferred to third countries that will accept them or admitted to the United States.

Where evidence of criminal activity does exist, detainees should be prosecuted in traditional federal courts. Contrary to the views of proponents of detention without trial who argue that America's existing courts can't handle terrorism prosecutions, the United States justice system has a long history of handling terrorism cases without compromising fundamental rights of defendants while accommodating sensitive national security issues. In fact, a recent analysis of more than 100 successfully prosecuted international terrorism cases conducted by two former federal prosecutors for Human Rights First found that "the justice system ... continues to evolve to meet the challenge terrorism cases pose." Our courts have proven that they can handle sensitive evidence. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) outlines a comprehensive set of procedures for federal criminal cases involving classified information. Applying CIPA over the years, courts have successfully balanced the need to protect national security information, including the sources and means of intelligence gathering, with defendants' fair trial rights.

Some have argued that the best way to deal with the toughest cases at Guantanamo would be to establish what amounts to another unconstitutional detention system once the island prison camp is shut down. The proponents of this school of thought claim that there are some detainees who are too dangerous to be released but who cannot face criminal charges. This is mostly based on the assumptions that some detainees have committed crimes not covered by American law, that some cases rely on sensitive national security information that cannot be disclosed in open court, and that the evidence against some detainees would not be admissible in a regular court because it was coerced through torture or abuse.

But federal prosecutors have an imposing array of prosecutorial weapons at their disposal, including laws that criminalize conspiring or attempting to commit homicide, harboring or concealing terrorists, and providing "material support" to terrorist organizations. The government can secure a conviction for conspiracy by showing only an agreement to commit a crime against the United States and any overt act in furtherance of that agreement. If the government cannot meet that minimal burden of proof, it is difficult to see why it should continue to detain a suspect.

It is true that many of the statements obtained from detainees through abusive interrogation would not be admissible in a court of law. But the fact that the American justice system prohibits imprisonment on the basis of evidence tortured out of prisoners is one of its strengths, not a weakness; it's why we call it a "justice system" in the first place. Moreover, one would hope that if a prisoner were as guilty or dangerous as claimed, the government would be able to gather enough admissible evidence to prove its case from untainted sources, such as computers or cell phones that were seized, conversations that were intercepted, or physical surveillance that was conducted.

But most importantly, to create a whole new detention system and enact new legislation to accommodate the Bush administration's shameful torture policies would be a legal and moral catastrophe. Even the most unequivocal repudiation of torture would be hollow if your administration were to construct another regime to hide its occurrence and evade its consequences.

The lessons from the military commissions debacle should be heeded. It is not possible to create a brand new system of justice from scratch in the United States without enduring years of litigation and controversy. Any new national court system or regime that allows detention without due process will be challenged, most likely all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there will be massive controversy and uncertainty about the fate of detainees caught up in it.

There's no doubt the Bush administration's abhorrent detention policies have left you, the American people and the entire world with a huge mess to clean up. At the same time, you have inherited a huge opportunity to lead America on its journey to regain its values and credibility. This cannot be done with half-steps. There's no such thing as "sort of upholding our principles to the extent possible." We strongly urge you to uncompromisingly restore America's role as a nation that stands for decency, justice and the rule of law.

With gratitude for your consideration in this matter,


Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union

Larry Cox
Executive Director
Amnesty International USA

Elisa Massimino
Executive Director
Human Rights First

Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page