Saudi Arabia is prime source of terror funds, U.S. says

WASHINGTON â?? Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.

Stuart A. Levey, a Treasury undersecretary, told a Senate committee that the Saudi government had not taken important steps to go after those who finance terrorist organizations or to prevent wealthy donors from bankrolling extremism through charitable contributions, sometimes unwittingly.

"Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world," Levey said under questioning.

U.S. officials have previously identified Saudi Arabia as a major source of funding for extremism. But Levey's comments were notable because, although reluctant to directly criticize a close U.S. ally, he acknowledged frustration with administration efforts to persuade the Saudis and others to act.

"We continue to face significant challenges as we move forward with these efforts, including fostering and maintaining the political will among other governments to take effective and consistent action," Levey said, later adding: "Our work is not nearly complete."

Levey was the sole witness before the Senate Finance Committee, which Tuesday ordered an independent review of the efforts to choke off financing used by Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the committee chairman, announced the review at the end of the hearing held to assess the money-tracking campaign by Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, headed by Levey.

The Bush administration created the office in 2004 to spearhead efforts to disrupt the flow of money to extremist causes, primarily from wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf.

However, U.S. officials and counter-terrorism experts have said that international support for the effort has waned while terrorist groups have found ways around the financial restrictions. At the same time, there have been turf battles among the 19 federal agencies that work on the problem.

Senators praised work done by Levey but expressed concerns about the overall U.S. effort. The committee's Democratic and Republican leaders cited a Los Angeles Times report last week detailing problems undermining the effort.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican, said extremist groups had adapted to changing U.S. investigative methods: "We are simply not prepared right now to keep up with them and put them out of business once and for all."

Levey said the campaign has succeeded in disrupting terrorist financing by freezing suspicious assets and in gathering intelligence that could be used to identify extremists and disrupt their activities.

But under questioning by senators, Levey also spoke of difficulty in getting Saudi Arabia to take the steps U.S. officials consider necessary.

Levey said the Saudis had been aggressive in going after terrorist cells. But he said they had not lived up to promises to establish the kind of financial intelligence unit needed to trace the money trails of terrorists. Another problem is that the Saudi government has not set up a charity oversight commission to track whether donations end up in the hands of extremists.

Levey said the Saudi government has not moved to publicly hold accountable those within the kingdom who have been the subject of enforcement actions by the U.S. and other authorities.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said the Saudi failures mean that Americans who pay more than $100 a barrel for oil are in effect bankrolling extremism because wealthy Saudis "back-door" their profits into charities that fund extremist causes.

Nail Jubeir, press attache for the Saudi embassy in Washington, dismissed those concerns, saying the Bush administration has repeatedly praised Saudi Arabia for its efforts to combat terrorism.

"We have been very vigilant in our campaign against terrorism financing," Jubeir said. "We have come a long way since 9/11 on this issue."

Jubeir confirmed that Saudi Arabia has not set up the financial intelligence unit or charity commission, but said it was cracking down on the financiers of terrorism in other ways, such as making it illegal for anyone to send money outside the kingdom "without going through official government channels."

Alleged financiers of terrorism identified by the United States are being investigated, and their assets have been frozen, Jubeir said. "But unless we have evidence to try them . . . we don't parade them in public," he said. "What if it turns out they are innocent?"

At the hearing, senators also expressed concern about disputes among U.S. agencies and other administrative and investigative functions of Levey's office. Baucus and Grassley asked that the Government Accountability Office review its internal efficiency and effectiveness as well as its cooperation with foreign governments.

Levey said he had not seen the request from Baucus and Grassley, but added: "We welcome any source of advice as to how we can improve."

Looks like you invaded the wrong country.But of course you did the Saudi royal family are very close friends with the Bush family.With friends like that who needs enemies.

well shit then! in the name of all that is neo-con and double think we better give them more money!!

What...? You mean the Saudi's are looking out for number 1? How dare they? Were they looking for the insurgents finances here in the states, do you really think our government would just seize our citizens finances, just like that? A couple of meetings in the state department, and bing bang boom...cash in hand. Negotiations take time.
I'm guessing it doesn't matter that Osama Bin Laden is a member of a rich Saudi family (wealth from construction) and that Osama has been trying for decades to take down the Saudi Royal Family? Granted, some of the royal Saudi family are supporters of the insurgencies, but the policy makers there are scrambling to defeat the insurgents, just the same. In their culture, in their society, making agreements with the enemy is often part of the game.

Hack-jobs like this are so boring. Pick a half-truth here, a semi-lie there...throw in some half-baked quotes, and omitted facts...and walla...another post, in the long line of Fishman's Daily Diatribes.

Fishman...I'll say it again. Likely, if this was you making these remarks, associations, connections...I'd continue the discussions in a wholehearted, deliberative manner. But these are not your original thoughts, and you obviously never have anything to add to the posts. Nor do you leave the post with more information backing these hack-jobs 'opinions'. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Quite frankly...I would much rather hear what you think about what you post, than to just assume you can't read and understand the content, well enough to form your own opinions.

But maybe that's just me. :jointsmile:

Cool... Barack Osama is making a speach on Martin Luther King's deathday. If you look closely, you can see his forked tongue. :thumbsup:

Rusty what i would like to know is given the circumstances of 9/11 why was Iraq invaded instead of Saudi Arabia and why Americans are not asking that same question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

Rusty what i would like to know is given the circumstances of 9/11 why was Iraq invaded instead of Saudi Arabia and why Americans are not asking that same question.

---

just because some of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia does not mean that the Saudi people are our enemies now. the simple fact is that the hijackers used Saudi Arabia as an easy more "relaxed" entry way into the US. And for the Iraq part of the question; Saddam Hussein's time was up, he had to go... The Saudi Government may not be the most democratic government in the middle east but they are most definitely the most stable and the least dictator-like in the entire region, and a war with Saudi Arabia is by no means in the best interests of the American people, in my opinion of course...:stoned:

sorry Rusty for attempting to answer a question that was clearly directed at you, I just couldn't resist chiming in....:stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

Rusty what i would like to know is given the circumstances of 9/11 why was Iraq invaded instead of Saudi Arabia and why Americans are not asking that same question.

---

Actually, Afghanistan was attacked as a direct result of 9/11.

But two different circumstances.

Regarding Saudi Arabia...Osama attacked us, not the Saudi's. Osama is a Saudi dissident, as were a good majority of his supporters. Since he (Osama) was based at the time in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to cooperate, and turn him over, they paid the price. The bulk of the higher-ups in the Saudi royal family are more moderate. (more of a pro-western philosophy) The others in this family of hundreds, have enough money to play the other side of the coin, and support strict sharia law, the hardcore madrasa's, and Al Qaeda. Their own form of the first ammendment, I guess.

On Al Qaeda:
"The organization's primary goal is the overthrow of what it sees as the corrupt and heretical governments of Muslim states, and their replacement with the rule of Sharia (Islamic law). Al-Qaida is intensely anti-Western, and views the United States in particular as the prime enemy of Islam. Bin Ladin has issued three "fatwahs" or religious rulings calling upon Muslims to take up arms against the United States. (see Bin Ladinâ??s Declaration of War).

1) Attempts to radicalize existing Islamic groups and create Islamic groups where none exist.
2) Advocates destruction of the United States, which is seen as the chief obstacle to reform in Muslim societies.
3) Supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Eritera, Kosova, Pakistan, Somalia, Tajikistan and Yemen"
Al-Qa'ida (the Base)

On Bin Laden:
"Bin Laden also studied with radical Islamic thinkers and may have already been organizing al-Qaeda when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Bin Laden was outraged when the government allowed U.S. troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. In 1991 he was expelled from Saudi Arabia for anti-government activities."
Al-Qaeda — Infoplease.com

Osama Bin Laden was rich and pissed at his government, our government, the Russians, Ghandi... He was starting a revolutionary force, made-up of former fighters from the Afghanistan/Soviet war, and religious zealots willing to follow him. His actions were drawing the attention of his government (the government that he was attacking) and instead of detaining this son of a wealthy construction conglomeration owner, they booted him out of the country.

Regarding Iraq...The common belief at the time was that Saddam was restarting his nuke program. A belief propogated by Saddam himself, in an effort to raise his appearance of leathality, to his hostile neighbors. This, plus his continued support of homicide bombings in Israel (he was openly giving around $10,000.00 to every one of the families of the palestinian homicide bombers) and his openly hostile stances tword the world community, hooked-up with his refusal to allow the UN inspections, ignoring sanctions, and the Oil for Food scam...it was his turn to go. (ok...oil for food came later, lol)

HTH...Rusty

Even if they are, the United States isn't going to do anything about it. They give us too much oil for us to try to put a move on them. All 19 hijackers were Saudi.. and look what the U.S. did.

Iraq not only does not have close relations with Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden, but they were the only country that did not export any oil to the United States, and they are laying on the second largest oil reserve in the world. Everyone from the United States government is admitting that the Iraq war was a mistake.. welcome to 2001/02. Did it really take that long for the government to see that?

Damn pop-culturized Americans; they are the reason why Ron Paul isn't going to win the presidential election. He's the only presidential candidate that knows what is actually going on. Major props to all the people that voted for him though.

The world would be a much better place if Nader won 8 years ago. :hippy:

Ralph Nader lol didnt have a chance and if he didnt run Kerry might of been in office right now.Whether thats good or bad i dont know.Members of the Saudi Royal family whoever they are still support terrorist groups and need to be dealt with whether they are Saudi or not.

I know he didn't have a chance, he's not filthy rich from corrupt funding like the Democratic and Republican parties are. People don't even choose their candidate by what they stand for, but instead for their gender, race, hair style, smile, and their preacher. Sad world in what we live in today. Trust me, the Saudi Royal family will never be touched unless they stop giving us oil. They're richer than anyone on the planet, do you know why? You can't even start to count how much money they have. If you can count someone's fortune like Bill Gates, then they're nothing compared to the Royal Family.