Show me the money(man)

WARNING: British bloggers — do not write about this story.

In England, a convoluted case played out in which the government froze funds in British banks that were to be sent to Al Qaeda, the funds’ owners challenged that action, and the court held against the government. As a result of this successful court action, the court further ordered that the individuals who brought suit couldn’t be named, because they’d be “smeared” with the Al Qaeda brush (never mind that they were voluntarily financing Al Qaeda and using British funds to do so).

As Dr. Rusty Shackleford explains:

Under U.N. Resolution 1267 and its subsequent addendums, the Security Council:

obliged all States to freeze the assets, prevent the entry into or the transit through their territories, and prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer of arms and military equipment, technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities, with regard to the individuals and entities included on the Consolidated List.

The British papers have known who these individuals are but the gag order has meant they have to keep their mouths shut. All they can do is issue broad, broad hints, in the hopes that others will figure it out. As Shackleford again explains:

For instance, this Times piece:

The man, who can be identified only as G, is one of five people who challenged the Treasury’s powers to freeze terrorist suspects’ bank accounts in a successful High Court action…The judge banned publication of G’s name but The Times is aware of his identity, which is published on a United Nations Security Council list of terrorist suspects linked to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

However, Americans are not bound by this Court order, and Shackleford now reveals who the mysterious “G” really is: MOHAMMED AL GHABRA.

You and I, of course, probably don’t know a whole lot about this man — or even anything at all. The Treasury Department, however, is pretty well-informed about Mr. Al Ghabra and, from the point of view of Western security, it’s not a pretty picture:

Al Ghabra has organized travel to Pakistan for individuals seeking to meet with senior al Qaida individuals and to undertake jihad training. Several of these individuals have returned to the UK to engage in covert activity on behalf of al Qaida. Additionally, Al Ghabra has provided material support and facilitated the travel of UK-based individuals to Iraq to support the insurgents fight against coalition forces….

Apart from the financial and logistical support activities that led to his designation, Al Ghabra maintains contact with a significant number of terrorists, including senior al Qaida officials in Pakistan…

Al Ghabra is also in regular contact with UK-based Islamist extremists and has been involved in the radicalizing of individuals in the UK through the distribution of extremist media.

You can read the rest here, at the Jawa Report.  I’ll just leave you with Shackleford’s last word on the subject, which is well worth thinking about:

The fact that I was able to identify G so easily makes one wonder if these kind of gag orders are effective? And, in fact, doesn’t the public have a right to know who the UN has designated a terrorist? Especially when that terrorist may be living next door or down the street?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike Devx says

    Is this satire?

    Is it really possible that an English/British blogger could pop onto BookwormRoom here, read about who Mr. G is… and then promote the information… and then get into TROUBLE legally?

    This cannot be real. It cannot be real. Please tell me it isn’t real. This is the worst sort of violation of individual rights that I have heard of since I don’t know when. I sure hope this is satire.

  2. Ymarsakar says

    Europeans, the British included, always seem to like making cracks about how America is the nation of lawsuits and what not. And often we would agree with them in spirit if not in the details.

    While law suits have their problems, the basic fundamental spirit behind the lawsuit is one party suing another for redress of grievances.

    In Europe, they far prefer government arbitration and centralized control, where people don’t solve their problems with other problem, but instead call on the government goon squads to do it for them. Sure, the ACLU can use lawsuits in the same fashion ,but it was never what such civil suits were designed for. In Europe, the government has designed its law processes quite well to ensure that they control the relationship between one private party and another such party.

    Al Ghabra has organized travel to Pakistan for individuals seeking to meet with senior al Qaida individuals and to undertake jihad training.

    One of the little myths after 9/11 was that “terrorist organizations are impenetrable to Western intel so we don’t know jack about what they are doing”. Actually, we know a lot about what they are doing and who they are doing it with. Lawyers, people like Soros, orgs like the ACLU and CAIR, however, tend to put a very effective stop to effective use of such information and intelligence.

    It is not that the West doesn’t know who the terrorists are or what the heck they are doing. It is just that they can’t do jack about it until people start dying. Tough luck for you if you were the one that died, heh.

  3. junddi says

    This whole articale is a piece of Crap. I happen to know MR G. And this whole case is rubbish. Yes the treasury make loads of claims but since they say the information can not be shown to anyone no one can make a true assisement to know if the information is strong or not.

    And anyways do you know the amound of money that was frozen?

    It summed to a total of £45. Now please tell me you really think that it was worth freezing. And eventually they paid it back to him. They don’t show that either do they?

    Most people today judge others by some information they read somewhere. So if I can make a lie about someone and get someone in power to believe it. It will be seen as fact.

Leave a Reply