Law & Paneir

Much has been reported about the complex system of terrorist financing and the money trail facilitating the September 11 terror attacks. Individuals and charities from the Persian Gulf--mainly from Saudi Arabia--appear to be the most important source of funding for terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. According to an October 2002 Council on Foreign Relations report of an Independent Task Force on Terrorist Financing, Osama bin Laden and his men have been able to accumulate millions of dollars using legitimate businesses such as charities, nongovernmental organizations, mosques, banks and other financial institutions to help raise and move their funds. How does it work? Take Saudi Arabia for example. This Gulf monarchy is a rentier state in which no taxes are imposed on the population. Instead, Saudis have a religious tax, the zakat, requiring all Muslims to give at least 2.5 percent of their income to charities. Many of the charities are truly dedicated to good causes, but others mer

Hawalas,2 charities, commodities—each of these has one aspect in common: They are methods by which terrorists launder and remit their money. In the wake of 11 September, much has been discovered about the financial support structure of the terrorist cells that perpetrated the attacks on the United States. Investigation of these cells and others has revealed a wide array of methods used by international terrorists to fund their deadly activities. Among these methods are conventional money laundering, acquisition of illegal funds through drug trafficking, smuggling of bulk cash, trade-based money laundering, use of charities for fundraising, and informal money remittance systems such as hawala. With this smorgasbord of financial means from which to choose, international terrorists have been forcing law enforcement to use a shotgun approach in hopes of successfully hitting a terrorist financial target. Though the shotgun approach was effective in the immediate aftermath of 11 September—en

As thousands of civil rights advocates celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Atlanta last weekend, most media coverage conveyed the Act's importance in protecting minorities' political rights. Yet many of those same stories helped perpetuate a dangerous illusion by asserting that a right to vote is guaranteed by the 15th Amendment. The trouble is the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way. In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.” As a re