Cemetery Escort Duty

Source: A friend

I just wanted to get the day over with and go down to Smokey's. Sneaking a look at my watch, I saw the time, 1655. Five minutes to go before the cemetery gates are closed for the day. Full dress was hot in the August sun. Oklahoma summertime was as bad as ever--the heat and humidity at the same level--both too high.

I saw the car pull into the drive, '69 or '70 model Cadillac Deville, looked factory-new. It pulled into the parking lot at a snail's pace. An old woman got out so slow I thought she was paralyzed; she had a cane and a sheaf of flowers--about four or five bunches as best I could tell.

I couldn't help myself. The thought came unwanted, and left a slightly bitter taste: 'She's going to spend an hour, and for this old soldier, my hip hurts like hell and I'm ready to get out of here right now!' But for this day, my duty was to assist anyone coming in.

Kevin would lock the 'In' gate and if I could hurry the old biddy along, we might make it to Smokey's in time.

I broke post attention. My hip made gritty noises when I took the first step and the pain went up a notch. I must have made a real military sight: middle-aged man with a small pot gut and half a limp, in marine full-dress uniform, which had lost its razor crease about thirty minutes after I began the watch at the cemetery.

I stopped in front of her, halfway up the walk. She looked up at me with an old woman's squint.

'Ma'am,may I assist you in any way?'

She took long enough to answer.

'Yes, son. Can you carry these flowers? I seem to be moving a tad slow these days.'

'My pleasure, ma'am.' Well, it wasn't too much of a lie.

She looked again. 'Marine, where were you stationed?'

' Vietnam, ma'am. Ground-pounder. '69 to '71.'

She looked at me closer. 'Wounded in action, I see. Well done, Marine. I'll be as quick as I can.'

I lied a little bigger: 'No hurry, ma'am.'

She smiled and winked at me. 'Son, I'm 85-years-old and I can tell a lie from a long way off. Let's get this done. Might be the last time I can do this. My name's Joanne Wieserman, and I've a few Marines I'd like to see one more time.'

'Yes, ma 'am. At your service.'

She headed for the World War I section, stopping at a stone. She picked one of the flowers out of my arm and laid it on top of the stone. She murmured something I couldn't quite make out. The name on the marble was Donald S. Davidson, USMC: France 1918.

She turned away and made a straight line for the World War II section, stopping at one stone. I saw a tear slowly tracking its way down her cheek. She put a bunch on a stone; the name was Stephen X.Davidson, USMC, 1943.

She went up the row a ways and laid another bunch on a stone, Stanley J. Wieserman, USMC, 1944.

She paused for a second. 'Two more, son, and we'll be done'

I almost didn't say anything, but, 'Yes, ma'am. Take your time.'

She looked confused. 'Where's the Vietnam section, son? I seem to have lost my way.'

I pointed with my chin. 'That way, ma'am.'

'Oh!' she chuckled quietly. 'Son, me and old age ain't too friendly.'

She headed down the walk I'd pointed at. She stopped at a couple of stones before she found the ones she wanted. She placed a bunch on Larry Wieserman, USMC, 1968, and the last on Darrel Wieserman, USMC, 1970. She stood there and murmured a few words I still couldn't make out.

'OK, son, I'm finished. Get me back to my car and you can go home.'

Yes, ma'am. If I may ask, were those your kinfolk?'

She paused. 'Yes, Donald Davidson was my father, Stephen was my uncle, Stanley was my husband, Larry and Darrel were our sons. All killed in action, all marines.'

She stopped. Whether she had finished, or couldn't finish, I don't know. She made her way to her car, slowly and painfully.

I waited for a polite distance to come between us and then double-timed it over to Kevin, waiting by the car.

'Get to the 'Out' gate quick. I have something I've got to do.'

Kevin started to say something, but saw the look I gave him. He broke the rules to get us there down the service road. We beat her. She hadn't made it around the rotunda yet.

'Kevin, stand at attention next to the gatepost. Follow my lead.' I humped it across the drive to the other post.

When the Cadillac came puttering around from the hedges and began the short straight traverse to the gate, I called in my best gunny's voice: 'TehenHut! Present Haaaarms!'

I have to hand it to Kevin; he never blinked an eye--full dress attention and a salute that would make his DI proud.
She drove through that gate with two old worn-out soldiers giving her a send-off she deserved, for service rendered to her country, and for knowing duty, honor and sacrifice.

I am not sure, but I think I saw a salute returned from that Cadillac.

Instead of 'The End,' just think of 'Taps.'

As a final thought on my part, let me share a favorite prayer: 'Lord, keep our servicemen and women safe, whether they serve at home or overseas. Hold them in your loving hands and protect them as they protect us.'

Let's all keep those currently serving and those who have gone before in our thoughts. They are the reason for the many freedoms we enjoy.

'In God We Trust.'

Sorry about your monitor; it made mine blurry too!

If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under!

You are required to pass this on NOW!!!

Shifting Paradigms in Counterterror

by Phil Leggiere

Leading analyst sees Obama’s challenge as redefining “war on terror” as counterinsurgency.

“Paradigm shifts,” according to the famous formulation of historian Thomas Kuhn, occur when the reigning models which have guided a discipline no longer adequately account for new developments and data.

In an important essay titled Terrorism's Twelve Step Program, published in the scholarly journal The National Interest on the eve of the Obama inauguration, noted counterterror analyst Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and author of Inside Terrorism argues that many of the paradigms which have guided counterterror policy thinking since 9-11, and which the new administration will inherit, have become increasingly obsolete.

“The current threat environment posed by terrorism and insurgency makes a new strategy, approach and new organizational and institutional behaviors necessary,” Hoffman writes. “The nontraditional challenges to US national security and foreign-policy imperatives posed by elusive and deadly irregular adversaries emphasize the need to anchor changes that will more effectively close the gap between detecting irregular adversarial activity and rapidly defeating it.”

The first major conceptual change urged by Hoffman is to redine the global conflict against terrorism in terms of a global counterinsurgency (GCOIN) rather than a war.

“Although relevant to the challenge that the United States faced in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the term global war on terrorism (GWOT),” he says, “ has increasingly alienated our friends and discouraged our allies. This is particularly so in the Muslim world where the GWOT has unfortunately, and however erroneously, nonetheless become synonymous with a war on Islam.

A new model of counterinsurgency against terror, in Hoffman’s blueprint, would knit together as equally critical components political, economic, diplomatic, information and developmental sides inherent to the successful prosecution of counterinsurgency alongside the existing dominant military side of the equation.

Reframed as a counterinsurgency, efforts most also be radically refocused geographically, according to Hoffman.

“If 9/11 has taught us anything,” says Hoffman, “ it is that Al Qaeda is most dangerous when it has a sanctuary or safe haven from which to operate—as it now indisputably does.” “Indeed,” he goes on, “ virtually every major terrorist attack or plot of the past four years has emanated from Al Qaeda’s reconstituted sanctuary in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) or Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP).

Stressing the urgent and immediate need for a coherent “Obama doctrine” in Central Asia, Hoffman says, “the United States has no effective political or military strategy for either Afghanistan or Pakistan and appears to treat them separately and not synergistically. Given that the security challenges in both countries are now ineluctably symbiotic, any serious effort to stabilize and secure Afghanistan must begin with a clear and consistent policy designed to achieve the same in Pakistan.”

Accordingly, he adds, “ the highest priority for the Obama administration must be to refocus our—and our allies’—attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda began to collapse after 2001, but has now regrouped. This will entail understanding that Al Qaeda and its local militant jihadist allies cannot be defeated by military means alone.”

Adequately addressing new counterinsurgency challenges the Obama administration will face, Hoffman argues, entails yet another paradigmatic change in strategy.

“Success,” he writes, “ will require a dual strategy of systematically destroying and weakening enemy capabilities—that is, continuing to kill and capture Al Qaeda commanders and operatives—along with breaking the cycle of terrorist recruitment among radicalized "bunches of guys" as well as more effectively countering Al Qaeda’s effective information operations.”

“ The United States,” he adds, “ thus requires a strategy that harnesses the overwhelming kinetic force of the American military as part of a comprehensive vision to transform other, non-kinetic instruments of national power in order to deal more effectively with irregular and unconventional threats.”

To hope to accomplish this goal, Hoffman insists, “organizations will therefore have to do—or be compelled to do—what they have been reluctant to do in the past: reaching across bureaucratic territorial divides and sharing resources in order to defeat terrorists, insurgencies and other emerging threats.”

Clarifying these expectations and processes, according to Hoffman, is a critical step in efficiently addressing contemporary threats to US security as is creating incentives to more effectively blend diplomacy, justice, development, finance, intelligence, law enforcement, and military capabilities and coherently generating and applying resources to defeat terrorist and insurgent threats.

This will require, according to Hoffman, effective targeting of essential support and logistics networks, focusing on the middlemen that help terrorist organizations access funds and purchase supplies on the black market: financiers and smugglers.

“ Attention has mostly been focused on front organizations and individuals that provide money to terrorist organizations,” he says, “experience has shown that it would be more advantageous to expand this approach and target specifically the middlemen that, for instance, purchase diamonds from terrorists on the black market, or individuals that sell weapons to terrorist organizations.”

“What remains missing seven-and-a-half years into this struggle,” he adds, “ is a thorough, systematic and empirical understanding of our enemy: encompassing motivation as well as mindset; decision-making processes as well as command and control relationships; and ideological appeal as well as organizational dynamics.”

Such an understanding, he concludes, is essential to transcending the “one size fits all” mindset has predominated in our approach to countering what is in fact a diverse, and often idiosyncratic, array of enemies.

“Without fully knowing our enemy,” he says, “ we cannot successfully penetrate their cells; we cannot knowledgeably sow discord and dissension in their ranks and thus weaken them from within; nor can we think like them in anticipation of how they may act in a variety of situations, aided by different resources. Further, we cannot fulfill the most basic requirements of either an effective counterterrorist strategy—preempting and preventing terrorist operations and deterring their attacks—or of an effective counterinsurgency strategy, gaining the support of the population and through the dismantling of the insurgent infrastructure.”

Republic-vs-Democracy

Interesting .... Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

This well worth your time. A quick review of the differences between a Monarchy (or Dictatorship), an Oligarchy, a Democracy, a Republic, and Anarchy. And, did you know that the term "democracy" does not appear in either our Declaration of Independence nor our Constitution. Watch and learn...

Fastest shot in the world

This YouTube video will blow you away. Bob Munden claims to be the fastest gun to ever live. He specializes in quick drawing with a revolver. And he claims to hold 18 world records.

Can he back up all that big talk? You better believe it. I’ve never seen anyone do anything this fast. He uses a specially made gun and holster. But no gear alone can produce these results. This made my jaw drop.

Holder for Wiretaps

(Compiler's note: Is it really better late than never?)

First it was the special surveillance court that we learned last week has affirmed the President's constitutional power to undertake warrantless wiretaps. Now comes Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, who endorsed this executive authority during his confirmation hearing late last week.

During Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Utah's Orrin Hatch read Mr. Holder a passage from a speech the nominee gave to the American Constitution Society in June of last year. Mr. Holder had said, "I never thought I would see that a President would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens," referring to the National Security Agency program. "This disrespect for the law is not only wrong. It is destructive in our struggle against terrorism."

The Republican Senator was sniffing out Mr. Holder's views on executive power under the Constitution and whether Congress can pass laws, such as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that limit it. "Do you believe," asked Mr. Hatch, "that the President has -- that whoever is President has -- inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to engage in warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance? Or, in your opinion, does FISA trump Article II?"

Mr. Holder answered with some political tap dancing. "There's an exclusivity provision in the FISA act that essentially says, as Congress has expressed, this is the exclusive way in which that surveillance should occur," he said. "My speech was taking the Administration to task for not following the dictates of FISA. As I indicated -- I think in response to a previous question -- I think that had the Administration worked with Congress, as we are pledging to do, that tool, a very valuable tool, a very valuable tool, could have been in the arsenal of the Administration without any question about its legality."

Senator Hatch pressed him on this point, resulting in the following exchange:

Mr. Hatch: "Back to my prior point, the President's inherent authority under the Constitution. Can that be limited by a statute? You're relying on a statute as though that's binding on Article II of the Constitution."

Mr. Holder: "Well, the President obviously has powers under the Constitution that cannot be infringed by the legislative branch. That's what I was saying earlier. There are powers that the President has delegated to him -- that he has -- and Congress does not have the ability to say, with regard to those powers, you cannot exercise them. There's always a tension in trying to decide where that balance is struck. And I think we see the best result when we see Congress interacting with the President, the executive branch interacting with the legislative branch and coming up with solutions . . ."

Mr. Hatch: "That still doesn't negate the fact that the President may have inherent powers under Article II that even a statute cannot vary."

Mr. Holder: "Sure."

Mr. Hatch: "Do you agree with that statement?"

Holder: "Yeah. There are certain things that a President has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon."

Hatch: "Okay."

So let's see. Mr. Holder now concedes that Presidents have inherent powers that even a statute can't abridge, notwithstanding his campaign speeches. That makes us feel better about a General Holder on national security. But his concession is further evidence that the liberal accusations about "breaking the law" and "illegal wiretaps" of the last several years were mostly about naked partisanship. Mr. Holder's objection turns out to be merely the tactical political one that the Bush Administration would have been better off negotiating with Congress for wiretap approval, not that it was breaking the law. Now he tells us.

Prayer Service.

(Compiler's note: This is a must read item from ACT for America. Research is by the Center for Security Policy It is sufficiently problematic that ISNA, the organization of which Ingrid Mattson is president, was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial (which produced guilty verdicts on 108 counts). Mattson’s words and views beg the question: When there are Muslims in America who have publicly spoken out against Jihad, against shariah law, and against ISNA, why was Ingrid Mattson chosen for this interfaith prayer service?)

ISNA's Ingrid Mattson in Her Own Words

Center for Security Policy (Research Brief)
August 23, 2008
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=140&categoryid=140&subcategoryid=141
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/5544


1) Mattson places loyalty to Islam before loyalty to the United States of America:

If Muslim Americans are to participate in such a critique of American policy, however, they will only be effective if they do it, according to the Prophet's words, in a "brotherly" fashion. This implies a high degree of loyalty and affection. This does not mean, however, that citizenship and religious community are identical commitments, nor that they demand the same kind of loyalty. People of faith have a certain kind of solidarity with others of their faith community that transcends the basic rights and duties of citizenship.

2) Mattson on the possibility that Americans may "rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation":

The first duty of Muslims in America, therefore, is to help shape American policies so they are in harmony with the essential values of this country. In the realm of foreign policy, this "idealistic" view has been out of fashion for some time. Indeed, the American Constitution, like foundational religious texts, can be read in many different ways. The true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own. There is no guarantee, therefore, that Americans will rise to the challenge of defining themselves as an ethical nation; nevertheless, given the success of domestic struggles for human dignity and rights in the twentieth century, we can be hopeful.

3) Mattson denies the existence of terrorist cells in the United States:

There's a prejudgment, a collective judgment of Muslims, and a suspicion that well "you may appear nice, but we know there are sleeper cells of Americans," which of course is not true. There aren't any sleeper cells.

4) Mattson defends Wahhabism:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: What can you tell us about the Wahhabi sect of Islam? Is it true that this is an extremely right wing sect founded and funded by the Saudi royal family, and led by Osama bin Ladin? What is the purpose of the Wahhabi?

MATTSON: No it's not true to characterize 'Wahhabism' that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation. Because the Wahhabi scholars became integrated into the Saudi state, there has been some difficulty keeping that particular interpretation of religion from being enforced too broadly on the population as a whole. However, the Saudi scholars who are Wahhabi have denounced terrorism and denounced in particular the acts of September 11. Those statements are available publicly.

This question has arisen because last week there were a number of newspaper reports that were dealing with this. They raised the issue of the role of Saudi Arabia and the ideology there. Frankly, I think in a way it was a reaction to the attempts of many people to look for the roots of terrorism in misguided foreign policy. It's not helpful, I believe, to create another broad category that that becomes the scapegoat for terrorism.

5) Mattson on the negative effects of the end of the Islamic Caliphate:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Osama bin Laden made a reference that Muslims have been living in humiliation for 80 years. Did he refer to the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that dismantled caliphates and sultanates?

MATTSON: Yes, he is referring to that, to the overthrowing of the caliphate, which was a plan of European powers for many years. This deprived the Muslim world of a stable and centralized authority, and much of the chaos that we're living in today is the result of that.

6) Mattson teaches the jihadists Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abu'l-`Ala Mawdudi in her course at Hartford Seminary – see the syllabus here.

7) Mattson praises the jihadist Mawdudi (aka Maududi):

In response to another question, "Please suggest any comprehensive work of Tafseer (Qur'anic commentary) for us Muslim youth," she said, "There are different kinds of Tafseers. For e.g. there are ones that contain detailed interpretations of grammatical aspects of Qur'anic language. And there are others that serve to explain the general message of Qur'an, coupled with the experiences and insights of the author of the Tafseer. However, there aren't really any Tafseers that combine the both aspects. So far, probably the best work of Tafseer in English is by Maulana Abul A'la Maududi.'"

Maududi on jihad (Jihad in Islam, page 9): "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Maududi on denial of rights to non-Muslims (Jihad in Islam, page 28): "Islamic 'Jihad' does not recognize their right to administer State affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic 'Jihad' also refuses to admit their right to continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the public interest from the viewpoint of Islam."

Maududi on Shariah Law's precedence over any other legal system (Islamic Law and Its Introduction, p. 13): That if an Islamic society consciously resolves not to accept the Sharia, and decides to enact its own constitution and laws or borrow them from any other source in disregard of the Sharia, such a society breaks its contract with God and forfeits its right to be called 'Islamic.'"

8) Although she recommends and teaches Abdul ala Maududi, who advocates violent jihad against non-Muslims (see above), Mattson is highly critical of Christians who make the factual statement that texts by Muslims support violent jihad against non-Muslims -- and she equates Christian critics of violent jihad with Osama bin Laden, who wages violent jihad. Mattson on critical statements by Christians about Muslims:

"These kinds of statements are really irresponsible, because they can lead to violence against ordinary people......I don't see any difference between that and al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden [using] Islamic theology to justify violence against Americans. What's interesting is if you compare [their] statements about what Islam is and what Muslims believe, you'll find they are almost identical, and I reject both interpretations -- both the non-Muslims who are saying that Islam justifies violence against Christians and Jews, and the Muslims who are saying it. Certainly these statements have a very unnerving effect, especially when they continue, when more than one person says it."

9) Mattson is a traditionalist on Shariah law and the legitimacy of Shariah authorities:

"As a practicing Muslim, I believe that there is a core of fundamental beliefs and practices that distinguish authentic Islam from deviations. I also believe that apart from this essential core, the task of interpreting the application of Islamic norms to human society is an enormously complicated task, which inevitably leads to a broad range of opinion and practice. I agree with " Sunni" Muslims, the majority of the Muslim community worldwide, that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, no one has the right to claim infallibility in the interpretation of sacred law. At the same time, this does not mean that all opinions are equal, nor that everyone has the ability to interpret law. Without the intense study of Islamic texts and traditions under qualified scholars and without the presence of a stable Muslim community through which one can witness the wisdom of the living tradition, the chances of an ordinary believer arriving at a correct judgment about most legal issues are slim."

Click here to continue reading this article.

Former CIA Director Goss Talks about CIA in Rare Florida Public Appearance

by Naples Daily News

Former CIA director Porter Goss turned the tables on his audience Monday, asking a North Naples crowd of mostly retirees to ponder some of the questions he’s been asked over the years before asking him any. During a more than hour-long speech peppered with questions at St. John the Evangelist Church in North Naples, the 70-year-old former congressman, who represented Collier and Lee counties for nearly 16 years, asked the packed auditorium to focus on whether there still is a need for the Central Intelligence Agency. If so, he asked, what would it look like and what would it do? ....

Pandemic Prep Gaps Remain, Says House HS Committee, HHS

By Anthony L. Kimery

As the virulent H5N1 and other strains of avian influenza—some showing disturbing signs of mutations toward making them human-to-human transmissible—spreads throughout Southeast Asia, the African sub-continent, the Middle East and other areas of the world, virologists and pandemic preparedness authorities are becoming increasingly uneasy over the possibility that a human pandemic could emerge before the world is better prepared. ....

Strategic Insights

The Center for Contemporary Conflict has eleven new Feature Articles presented on three topics: ³Proliferation Pathways & Nuclear Ambitions;² ³Hard, Soft & Smart Power in Perspective;² and ³Geopolitics & International Economic Relations.² We also present two new Viewpoint articles, a new Student Thesis, and a report from this past summer¹s conference on Tomorrow¹s Proliferation Pathways.

They have eleven new Feature Articles to present this quarter.

In section one, on ³Proliferation Pathways & Nuclear Ambitions,² we present ³The Middle East¹s Next Nuclear State ,² by Bruno Tertrais; ³Russia¹s Proliferation Pathways ,² by Stephen Blank; ³Legal Instruments to Prevent Nuclear WMD Use by Non-State Actors ,² by Friedrich Steinhäusler; and ³Preparing for the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review:
Post-Cold War Nuclear Deterrence and the 2001 NPR Debate ,² by Maj. Scott Weston, USAF.

In section two, on ³Hard, Soft & Smart Power in Perspective,² we present ³Soft Power and Smart Power in Africa ,² by Maj.
James R. ³Hack² Hackbarth, USAF; ³Two Sides of the Same COIN: Torture and Terror in the Algerian War, 1954-62 ,² by Daniel Moran; ³The Information Domain as an Element of National Power ,² by Robert Kozloski; and ³Ajara ­ A New Russian Option in Georgia?
,² by William C.
Green.

In section three, on ³Geopolitics & International Economic Relations,² we present ³Liberal, Imperial, and Economic Motivation of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Philippines, 1898-1946 ,² by Maj. Scott Weston, USAF; ³The Global Financial Crisis and the Hidden Crisis of the Oil-Rentier Economies: Back to Basics ,² by Sabri Zire Al-Saadi; and ³Toward a Post-Arctic World ² by Barry S.
Zellen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
VIEWPOINTS

We have two new Viewpoint articles to present this quarter. They are:
Farideh Farhi¹s ³Israel, Gaza, the Return of an ŒEmboldened Iran¹ ­ and Obama ,² and Zachary Davis¹ ³Pakistan¹s Last Chance .²

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
STUDENT THESIS

We are proud to present a new student thesis from Jessica E. Cleary, ³The Effects of National Policy on Refugee Welfare and Related Security Issues: A Comparative Case Study of Lebanon, Egypt and Syria .²

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
CONFERENCE REPORT

And lastly, we present a conference report from ³Tomorrow¹s Proliferation
Pathways: Weak States, Rogues, and Non-State Actors ² held on July 17-18, 2008, authored by James A. Russell and Aaron May.

Singapore’s Zero-Tolerance Approach to Counter the Financing of Terrorism

By Dr. Rohan Gunaratna

Traditionally, investigations of acts of crime and terrorism take place after they have been committed. With the increase in the lethality of terrorism, governments should prevent acts of violence though proactive investigations. Realizing the adverse impact an attack in Singapore will have on its global reputation as a safe destination for trade, commerce and investment, government invested significant resources strengthening its preventive capabilities. ....

Al-Qaeda leaders in Iran sanctioned by OFAC

by Kenneth Rijock

Four Al-Qaeda members who reportedly have resided in Iran, including one of the sons of Osama Bin Ladin, have been sanctioned by the US Treasury as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT).

Their identifiers and aliases can be seen at:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/20090116.shtml
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
For further reading:
Treasury Targets Al Qaeda Operatives in Iran
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1360.htm

Watch developments in Korea

by Kenneth Rijock

Particularly bellicose announcements, made by the government-controlled press. from the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK), more commonly known as North Korea, could be a sign that the deteriorating relations between it and South Korea's government will cause North Korea to undertake some form of military action that will increase country risk. Compliance officers at financial institutions whose clients have ongoing business matters with Korean companies, or businesses in Korea, should regularly monitor the unfolding situation.

Some Korea watchers are especially worried that a recent television announcement, detailing the presence of "weaponised" plutonium in the DPRK, was made by a military officer. Reportedly, these media announcements are generally made by civilian reporters. There have also been anti-American statements reported as having been made by North Korean media.

UNDERSTANDING MONEY LAUNDERING

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

from World-Check

Defining money laundering and identifying the full scope of money laundering practices is the critical first step in creating an effective anti money laundering framework within a financial organisation.

As the leading global provider of risk intelligence solutions for Anti Money Laundering (AML) compliance purposes, World-Check supplies 47 of the 50 largest banks in the world with a highly structured database of heightened-risk entities and individuals. Collated from hundreds of thousands of credible data sources in the public domain, the database coverage includes a range of risk categories from money laundering and fraud to terrorism and corruption.

Read on for an overview of money laundering and the processes involved in the laundering of illicit funds, or find out more about how the World-Check AML intelligence solution can help your organisation meet its regulatory obligations.

What Is Money Laundering?

Essentially, money laundering refers to all actions and procedures intended to change the identity of money made from criminal activities in order to create the impression that the money has a legitimate source.

Money laundering, loosely defined, is the transactional processing or moving of illicitly gained funds (such as currency, cheques, electronic transfers or similar equivalents) towards disguising its source, nature, ownership or intended destination and/or beneficiaries. The desired outcome of this process is “clean” money that can be legally accessed or distributed via legitimate financial channels and credible institutions.

Money laundering scams abound, yet they all have a single goal in common: to create the illusion that illicitly generated funds have a legal source. As such, the challenge for Anti Money Laundering (AML) legislation is to cover loopholes as quickly and effectively as possible.

What drives money laundering?

Money laundering, as a rule of thumb, is driven by a criminal imperative aimed at generating profits in an illegal fashion. Such proceeds of organised crime, fraud or embezzlement exists “outside” a country’s legitimate financial system.

The money laundering process aims to camouflage such funds or financial assets by passing it through multiple accounts and shell companies (an illicit process referred to as “money laundering”) towards either totally obscuring the original source, or towards associating the funds or assets with a source that looks legal. If the laundering process is successful, the launderer gains access easily accessible funds that looks legitimate, and can be moved around with ease.

Why exactly is money laundering a problem?

The socio-economic effects of money laundering are crippling: Illicit funds generated from criminal activities such as gun running, drug and human trafficking and other forms of organised crime is laundered into clean currency, and in turn used to fund new criminal operations or expand existing ones. This translates into more drug trafficking and dealing, more illegal firearms, more violent crimes, and – most disconcertingly – more international terrorism.

Left unchecked, money laundering can undermine the integrity of entire financial systems, and embroil individual financial institutions in share-crippling financial scandals.

Moreover, the amounts of money generated from criminal activities and laundered throughout the world amount several billions of dollars – up to as much as 5% of the global GDP. This gives the beneficiaries of money laundering a lot of muscle, and certainly enough means to threaten political stability worldwide.

In essence, regulatory compliance seeks to curb this criminal proliferation by holding financial systems providers and banking institutions accountable for the financial activities of the clients they deal with. Money laundering poses a very real threat to the reputation and financial well-being of banks, law firms, accountants and asset management houses around the world, as these institutions are often unwitting accomplices in the laundering of dirty money.

Anti Money Laundering (AML) compliance post-9/11

Since the 9/11 attacks in the United States, AML and Anti Financing of Terrorism (ATF) compliance requirements for banks, law firms, accounting firms, asset management houses and similar financial service providers have been expanded significantly. The USA Patriot Act, BASEL II Act and Wolfberg principles, for example, serve as a framework for standardising Anti Money Laundering (AML) compliance and Know Your Customer (KYC) due diligence mandates.

Find out more about Anti Money Laundering (AML) laws and their implications for regulated service providers.

Entities such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Wolfsberg Group and Basel Committee are key drivers of the regulatory policy-making process, and are closely involved in the standardisation and enforcement of related compliance mandates.

How does money laundering work?

There exists a plethora of ways in which illicit funds can be laundered, yet the following example provides a good basic illustration of the thinking underlying the process:

A drug dealer may own a restaurant or bar, or be in cahoots with a partner that does. Proceeds from their drug dealing then gets paid into this reputable business, along with other regular trading income.

The launderers then open up additional service businesses or supply companies to serve the business or enterprise where money is initially placed. These service entities then issue invoices, which the restaurant settles by means of cheque payments. By increasing the amount of businesses interacting by means of such transactions, and by moving the money around internationally, the criminal origins of the money is effectively obscured, if not fully concealed. The successful laundering enriches the directors and/or the shadowy interests they represent.

Forensic auditors would need to spend months – if not years – retracing each step, hence such investigations are generally not undertaken unless the amount of money being laundered is substantial, or the nature of the crimes being funded is heinous.

The beneficiaries of such money laundering scams and syndicates are often high net-worth individuals and entities, and in turn they become highly sought after as private banking clients. They then tend to gain access to legitimate investment opportunities and privileged high-end investment funds, making apprehending them even harder.

To this end, Anti Money Laundering (AML) legislation and the regulatory bodies enforcing compliance endeavour to close money laundering loopholes on an ongoing basis. This is achieved by expanding the existing money laundering definition and AML compliance requirements, and by holding banks, law firms, asset managers and accounting houses accountable for their compliance performance.

For banks, AML compliance is by no means a new challenge, yet recent world events have prompted the critical reassessment and expansion of existing compliance regulations. The number of industries being regulated in terms of AML compliance, KYC regulation and AFT compliance has also increased substantially.

The 3 stages of money laundering

Essentially, there are three primary (though often overlapping) stages in the money laundering “spin cycle”:

• The placement stage
• The layering stage
• The integration stage

Money Laundering: The Placement Stage

During the placement stage, the hard currency generated by the sale of drugs illegal firearms, prostitution or human trafficking, etc. needs to be disposed of, and is deposited in an institution or business. Expensive property or assets may also be bought.

Money Laundering: The Layering Stage

During the layering stage, money launderers endeavour to separate illegally obtained assets or funds from their original source. This is achieve by creating layer upon layer of transactions, by moving the illicit funds between accounts, between businesses, and by buying and selling assets on a local and international basis until the original source of the money is virtually untraceable.

The more transactional layers are created, the more difficult it becomes for an auditor to trace the original source of illicit funds, and thus anonymity is achieved.

Money Laundering: The Integration Stage

Upon successful completion of the financial layering process, illicit funds are reintroduced into the financial system, as payment for services rendered, for example. By this stage, illegally obtained funds closely resemble legally generated wealth.

Depending on the money laundering mechanisms available to the launder, these three steps may overlap. Whether the money laundering process starts with a deposit or a purchase, the methods will invariable entail layers of shape-shifting transaction aimed at distancing the funds or assets from their source origins. The further this transactional distance becomes, the “cleaner” the laundered money appears.

Click here for additional information

Final Rule on transactions exempt from CTRs

by Kenneth Rijock

The Final Rule regarding exemptions from the requirements of Currency Transaction Reporting (CTR) have been iassued by FinCEN. Readers may want to keep it handy for ready reference. (32 CFR Part 103) the Rule appeared on the OCC website, and we provide the URL here for your conveneince.

Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 235, 5 December, 2008.
http://www.occ.treas.gov/fr/fedregister/73fr74010.pdf

Gaza Redevelopment funds may pose a Threat to Financial Institutions

by Kenneth Rijock

The tug of war over exactly how Gaza rebuilding funds will be administered is distracting us from a far more serious issue: will the transmission of such reconstruction funds result in regulatory fines and penaltiesfor financial institutions involved? How does a bank fund reconstruction, where the government is a designated global terrorist organisation? These questions will require an answer from banks in the region who will be asked to participate in the reconstruction process.

The major issue presented is whether US regulators, who have sanctioned Hamas as a SDGT, will choose to sanction Middle Eastern financial institutions that directly(and not indirectly) fund Hamas in the redevelopment operation. Remember that the US sanctioned not only Hizballah's construction company after the 2006 conflict between Hizballah and Israel, but its successor company.* How the US will treat Hamas in the post-war period may give us an idea regarding how it intends to treat banks who fund rehabilitation money to Hamas, directly or in a covert manner.

The secondary issue is whether the intermediary presence of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO), acting on humanitarian grounds, and routing funds, will deter US regulators from punitive action against regional banks involved in the funding.

Any financial institution in the Middle East that has already been approached by potential donors had best consult with bank counsel immediately, lest it find itself in trouble with US law enforcement or regulators as a facilitator of terrorism.

Defeating Terrorist Support Structures after Mumbai II

by John Soloman

The November 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai underscored a central challenge in the global counterterrorism struggle: defeating broad terrorist support structures. This is the second of a three part series to address this fundamental and often controversial aspect of countering the financing of terrorism (CFT).

The issue is fundamental because without solid recruitment and funding structures, the active terrorist cells are debilitated to a significant degree. The issue is controversial because broad organizational infrastructures often encompass non-profit fronts that carry out vital humanitarian activities irrespective of their involvement in militancy or terrorism.

Non-profit organizations continue to be an effective way for terrorist organizations to raise money and build their infrastructures. The February 2008 FATF report indicated that non-profit organizations are “coming to be recognized as a crucial weak point in the global
struggle to combat terrorist finance.” This trend is not a new one. Charitable fronts have long been associated with controversial causes.

In the context of November’s attack, this second report will examine the Pakistan-based non-profit organization Jamaatud- Dawa (JuD), allegedly the public face of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
(LeT), which is thought to be responsible for the horrific siege of Mumbai. JuD denies any link to LeT. The third report will consider whether the UN Security Council’s decision to ban JuD following the attack will eliminate the organization or its activities, and will also provide recommendations for the private and public sectors to fortify the system to reduce the risk of breach by terrorists and their financiers.....

Fannie, Freddie Strive to Serve Housing Market, Taxpayers

Four months after the U.S. government takeover of home-mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their chief executives and regulators again find themselves with conflicting goals.

Before the takeover, the tension was between shareholders' desire for bigger dividends and political pressure on the government-sponsored mortgage companies to support the housing market and help more low-income people afford homes. Now the conflict is between the government's efforts to spur housing with lower mortgage costs and the desire to avoid heavy loan-default losses that would be borne by taxpayers.

Fannie and Freddie over the past 18 months have gradually imposed larger surcharges ...