"Microfinancing Terrorism: A Study in Al Qaeda Financing Strategy"
(in State of Corruption, State of Chaos: The Terror of Political Malfeasance,
M. Cox, ed., 2008) by
Tolga Koker (Yale University) and
Carlos L. Yordan (Drew University).
This article explains why individuals support the work of charities
that support jihadist operations, even when they may not agree with
these organizations' agenda. It first explains why al Qaeda and other
jihadist groups use charities to raise most of their funds. It then
introduces a behavioral model, arguing that individual Muslims donate
monies to Islamist charities that support jihadist causes as a response
to social pressures, in an attempt to avoid social seclusion. It
concludes with policy implications in the ongoing global struggle
against terrorism.
HT to National Security Advisors.
"Bank Liability Under the Anti-Terrorism Act: Dispelling the 'Routine Banking Services' Defense in Material Support Cases"
by Stephen I. Landman (Catholic University of America - Columbus School
of Law).
This article evaluates civil liability for financial institutions that
provide material support to terrorist organizations, analyzing the
development of the ATA and related legislation proscribing material
support to terrorist groups and highlighting the evolving statutory
construction by looking to the body of case law surrounding lawsuits
against the terrorist support network. Using the lawsuit filed on
behalf of Daniel Pearl as a case study, this article concludes that a
broad interpretation of the statute is not only in line with the
legislative intent of the ATA, but is also the only way in which it can
be effective in halting terrorist financing.
"The Best Tool for the Job:
The U.S. Campaign to Freeze Assets of
Proliferators and their Supporters" (Virginia Journal of International Law, 2009) by CarrieLyn Donigan Guymon (Golden Gate University School of Law).
This article reviews the legal framework in the United States for
freezing the assets of individuals and entities engaged in proliferation-related
activities. It argues that the United States and the international community must
maintain nonproliferation sanctions because these sanctions protect the
integrity of the national and global systems and actors within the jurisdictions
imposing them. Regardless of their impact on the target, nonproliferation sanctions
must be used to send that strong signal of abhorrence for proliferant
behavior.
"EU Law, International Law and Economic Sanctions Against Terrorism: The Judiciary in Distress?"
(Fordham
International Law Journal, Forthcoming)
by P. Takis Tridimas (Queen Mary University of London) and Jose A.
Gutierrez-Fons (Queen Mary University of London, School of Law).
This article examines the relationship between European Union
law, international law, and the protection of fundamental rights in the
light of Kadi, Al Barakaat, and other recent case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the
Court of First Instance (CFI) relating to economic sanctions against
individuals.
Opinion: Is Obama striking the right balance?
05/25/09: The Washington Post has a collection of opinion pieces by lawmakers, activists and others asking whether the president is striking the right balance between national security, civil liberties and government transparency. Contributors include Carl Levin, Marc A. Thiessen, Kenneth Roth, Victoria Toensing, Darrel J. Vandeveld, Ed Rogers, Michael Rubin, Elisa Massimino and Lucy Dalglish. The Financial Times also has a short piece on the same topic.
May 25, 2009 at 09:18 AM in Executive Branch, Politics, Commentary / Opinion | Permalink | TrackBack (0)