Targeting Terrorism with Legal Tactics

With the increasing power of different terrorist organizations around the world, many people wonder how to best weaken them. Countries like Israel, the United States, and others that have fallen victim to despicable attacks often resort to military and legal tactics. However, we have found it incredibly difficult to pinpoint the exact locations of terrorist cells, so military strategy has not been as helpful as we would typically like. Additionally, prosecutions of terrorists only target a very small quantity, and thus have not been very successful in deterring terrorism.

This latter point does not suggest that we should dismiss legal tactics all together, though. Instead, we need to find a new, more effective target. In order to assess whom countries like Israel and the United States should be targeting, we should first determine terrorist organizations’ most powerful resource. It is not particular members, for they can always recruit more, which is why trials targeting these individuals have not been very helpful. Instead, their most powerful resources is the incredible vast of wealth they have accumulated that permits them to have such a sophisticated organizational structure and weaponry to attack innocent people.

But how can we harm these terrorist organizations’ finances with legal tactics? Who should be the target? On September 22, a federal jury in New York City found Arab Bank, the largest financial institution in Jordan, to be liable for knowingly supporting terrorist operations connected to 24 attacks in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank from 2001 to 2004 during the Second Intifada. This is who should be the target of fierce prosecution: worldwide banks that provide financial assistance to terrorist organizations. If we bring down these banks, we can cut off the cash flow. If we cut off the cash flow, we take away the capabilities to harm innocent people. In essence, we extinguish terrorism.

The case in New York City, Linde v. Arab Bank, was the first civil trial against a bank under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The plaintiffs in this case included about 300 victims of terrorist attacks that had been orchestrated by Hamas. They alleged that Arab Bank handled transfers and payments for this Gaza-based terrorist group, but Arab Bank insisted that it had abided by compliance procedures. In order to prove guilt, the plaintiffs had to show that Hamas held responsibility for the terrorist attacks and that Arab Bank’s assistance to Hamas was the “proximate cause” of these attacks. They also had to prove their injuries were “reasonably foreseeable” due to the bank’s involvement.

The trial lasted five weeks and the jury deliberated for two days, leading to the ultimate finding that the bank was indeed liable. This was not the first time Arab Bank has faced legal repercussions for terrorism – related incidents. In 2005, it made a settlement with regulators after the discovery that its New York branch lacked an appropriate program to notice money laundering and terrorist financing. It paid a $24 million civil penalty and has since been required to maintain at least $420 million in assets in the U.S. This time around, Arab Bank’s wrongdoing was indeed much worse.

And the point here is: we caught them. Thanks to the efforts of the legal system in the United States, Arab Bank may never fund a terrorist organization and thus assist in financing attacks again. However, we cannot stop here. If Arab Bank is from now on unwilling to support Hamas or any other terrorist organization, these groups will just go elsewhere to fund their operations. Thus, we must expand efforts to ensure all of the large banks and financial institutions have absolutely no involvement with terrorist organizations worldwide. We can do this by mandating stricter programs to locate sources of terrorism financing, as well as more prosecutions. The United States cannot be the only country to adopt these measures; Israel and all other freedom-loving countries must enact them too. This way, we can move forward in addressing the very serious, worldwide terrorism that threatens our security and livelihood.

Buckle Up: Another Extended Campaign Into The Middle East

[response to] September 16th's Middle East Forum with the International Relations Council

Earlier this week, our club (known off-the-web as the Israeli Culture Club) hosted its second installment in our 2014 Spring Middle East Forum Series, this time with cosponsorship by the International Relations Council. The IR Council is similar to our pro-Israel group in that we are relatively new to Colgate’s campus, and we both strive to analyze and interact with the global political sphere that often does not otherwise reach Hamilton, New York.

The layout of our discussion on Tuesday was very relaxed and open to any direction, and as a result it was interesting and telling to see what current events and themes emerged after 60 minutes of deliberation.

The first point of focus was in regards to President Obama’s decision to employ airstrikes as a key strategy in combatting the Islamic State. While most event attendees agreed that these US-led airstrikes were indeed appropriate and essential in stopping the immediate spread of ISIS, many also expressed concern that these airstrikes will be counter-productive in the long-term in that they will only play into the narrative that America and the West is the undeniable adversary to all Arabs. The propaganda war, both in print and online, is fundamental to this debate.

Take this tweet for example:

The propaganda war is very much alive and active, and therefore in this context (as many argued on Tuesday), the implemented strategies and policies the United States and Its allies undertake simply do not matter. The only way for America to effectively combat the Arab Narrative of Western "imperialism" would be to simply vacate involvement in the region....which our conversation ventured into next and where I will go into detail below.

The question of "How to fix the Middle East?" was presented to Tuesday's participants. The conversation was not as generic as one may think, in that those of us breaking down the answer attempted to get to the true roots of the conflicts. My opinion is that at this juncture in time, it is impossible to justly and impartially allow for the many different ethnicities of the Middle East to determine their own political futures, isolated from foreign involvement. In a utopian world, we would (a) be able to go back in time and reverse the many short-term political maneuvers of the British and French during/post WWI that have resulted in this chaos, or (b) be able to withdraw all Western involvement in the region and allow for a natural and untainted process of [hopefully] democratization of the region.

Since I do not think a time machine has been built yet (although I wouldn't doubt that the Technion is close), and the other option of abandoning the Middle East would simply result in a political vacuum only to be filled by extremist groups like ISIS or superpowers like Russia or China, I will have to echo this post's predecessor in Max Kurzner by stating that the United States and the Free World have no other option but to confront the Islamic State militarily and politically. 

I would hope that in my next post, I will be able to discuss other Middle Eastern topics besides ISIS, but we may as well call this what it is: war. And we may as well distinguish that the threat from ISIS will not be easily fought and won. The American public should buckle up and be prepared for another extended campaign in the region.

Until next time Blogosphere,

AB

ISIS and the U.S: Is there any other choice but to go on the offensive?

     In recent months ISIS has made headlines around the world with its campaign of ruthless brutality in Iraq and Syria. The Obama Administration has debated on what course of action the United States should take in order to roll back the immense gains that ISIS has made. Many have speculated on what choice would be best given a war weary American public, and escalating crises the world over. An interesting opinion article which I found, argues that ISIS left the United States with no other choice but to go on the offensive. If you interested in reading the article I will put a link to it at the bottom of this post.
      The fight against ISIS is just the latest in a string of conflicts that the Obama administration has had to deal with, from winding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and now action in Iraq and Syria. No single administration or policy can be blamed for the emergence of ISIS. However, it is clear that no other course of action will stem the tide of extremists in the Middle East other than swift and decisive action. Coordinating and conducting airstrikes with our close allies will allow for the United States to avoid a direct ground war akin to those in Iraq and Afghanistan while driving back ISIS. No other alternatives would be plausible at the current juncture as any further inaction would only strengthen the argument of those that already think that the United States is being too weak and timid in its foreign policy, and any stronger action would alienate a large chunk of the democratic party and make the distinction between Obama and Bush even smaller as he brings the country into another war.
  At the end of the day, one must realize the sheer complexity of the Middle East and how ISIS is just the latest non-state actor to emerge as a threat to Israel and the region. The weeks and months ahead will test the resolve of the United States and its allies by seeing if ISIS can be extinguished and if other extremist elements can be squashed out before becoming a regional powerhouse, which ISIS is threatening to be, if left unchecked. It may leave a bitter taste in peoples mouths but like it or not, ISIS is a problem that must and will be dealt with.

Here is a link to the article