New York enacts Libel Terrorism Protection Act

Gov. David Paterson signed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act on Thursday, helping New York set the pace in protecting American journalists from foreign libel verdicts.

The bill was first proposed in response to a ruling from New York’s highest court that the state could not exercise jurisdiction over Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian businessman and banker who obtained a default judgment in a defamation suit against American author Rachel Ehrenfeld in a British court. Bin Mahfouz is one of the world’s most notorious libel tourists, having used or threatening to use plaintiff-friendly British courts to sue for libel at least 36 times since 2002.

The law combats such international forum shopping on two fronts. It prevents litigants from enforcing foreign libel judgments in the state unless a New York court finds that the jurisdiction issuing the judgment provides the same free speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. and New York state constitutions.  Secondly, it grants New York courts jurisdiction over litigants who obtain a foreign defamation judgment against New York state citizens, allowing Ehrenfeld and others like her to petition a state court for a declaratory judgment rendering the foreign decision unenforceable on New York soil.

In signing the bill, Paterson recognized that New York has blazed a trail that other states and the federal government must follow. 

“Although New York State has now done all it can to protect our authors while they live in New York, they remain vulnerable if they move to other states, or if they have assets in other states,” Paterson said in a statement. “We really need Congress and the President to work together and enact federal legislation that will protect authors throughout the country against the threat of foreign libel judgments.”

Picking up on the tone set by his state, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) took the first step towards establishing similar protections on a national scale when he introduced the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Representatives.

Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press

New York to Protect Writers from Foreign Libel Suits

New York Governor David Paterson signed into law yesterday the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act,” according to the New York Sun. This bill, for which Harvey and his colleague Samuel A. Abady have lobbied in the Boston Globe and the New York Post, is the direct result of the recent censorship of New York journalist and counterterrorism expert Rachel Ehrenfeld. In her book, Funding Evil, Ehrenfeld named Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz as a leading financier of Islamic terrorism based on an exhaustive review of government documents. While Ehrenfeld’s scholarship, particularly her characterizations of Muslim charities, are controversial, there’s no doubt that her attack on bin Mahfouz is fully protected speech and does not even approach the threshold set for libel by New York Times v. Sullivan. Nonetheless, bin Mahfouz has been able to effectively muzzle Ehrenfeld by suing her in England, where 23 copies of her book were ordered online and where libel laws are much more plaintiff-friendly. Like most journalists, Ehrenfeld could not afford to battle a litigious billionaire in a foreign country. She had no choice but to accept a declaratory judgment that she pay $225,000 in damages and pulp remaining copies of Funding Evil. The “Libel Terrorism Protect Act” now allows her to challenge the British court’s judgment on American soil, where she will enjoy the full protections of the First Amendment. Let’s hope that civil libertarian groups around the country understand the importance of rallying their state legislatures to pass similar legislation

The Pheonix

Conference Laments 'Libel Tourism' By Islamists

By: Bradley Vasoli, The Bulletin

New York - Security and legal experts admonished the Western world that Islamist terrorists take a heavy toll not only in lives but also in speech rights. on Thursday at Free Speech In The Age of Jihad conference held at the Princeton Club in New York City.

Six and a half years after Sept. 11, 2001, a phenomenon has taken hold in Europe, Canada and, to a lesser but potent extent, the United States that experts call "libel tourism." It refers to reputed supporters of terrorist networks like al-Qaida or Hezbollah filing civil complaints against their journalistic critics in a nation that defines "libel" very broadly. Because many books and periodicals are sold internationally, this presents a legal snag that is difficult for many authors to avoid.

One such apparent target of libel tourism is Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It (Bonus Books, 320 pages). Saudi native Khalid bin Mahfouz successfully sued her for libel in England when her book, which alleges he has helped to fund al-Qaida, sold a few copies in Great Britain through Internet vendors. The litigation came as a surprise to Ms. Ehrenfeld, who had only made an effort to market the book in the United States.

To Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, Mr. bin Mahfouz's decision to target the author in Britain owed to a simple realization: He didn't stand a chance in a United States court. But publishing houses now resist picking up Ms. Ehrenfeld's projects for fear that their doing so will entice lawsuits from her writings' subjects.
"Bin Mafouz has effectively paralyzed an entire subfield of American authors," Mr. Kurtz said.

Ms. Ehrenfeld has been ordered to pay a judgment of roughly $20,000 and over $200,000 in legal bills incurred by the litigant. She continues to seek avenues to fight the judgment of British Judge David Eady. Barring her success, she runs the risk of being arrested should she travel to Great Britain.

"[Supporters of terror networks] know how to silence us," she said. "And we need to do something in order to counter it."
On March 31, the New York state legislature took action of its own to provide partial protection to those like Ms. Ehrenfeld whose works have been subject to the litigiousness of their opponents. It unanimously passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, which specifies that New York does not have the onus of enforcing a defamation judgment issued in a foreign country unless the law provides for free-speech protections equivalent to those afforded by U.S. law.

The conference in New York City was sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the New Criterion magazine.

Bradley Vasoli can be reached at bvasoli@thebulletin.us.


©The Evening Bulletin 2008

Saudi wields British law against U.S. author

Billionaire leverages harsher libel rules to suppress unflattering book

By James Oliphant Tribune Correspondent, March 17, 2008


NEW YORK - Rachel Ehrenfeld writes about terrorism for a living. But now she is the one who feels targeted.

Her modest midtown Manhattan apartment is filled to the ceiling with books, most having to do with global terror networks and Mideast conflict. Sitting at her desk, she gazes out at the Hudson River. She says she has a hard time placing her work. She says she has been blacklisted. If she travels to England, she fears she will be arrested.

"I feel like a leper," she said.

Ehrenfeld faces a $225,000 judgment obtained in a British court in a libel suit brought by a former banker to the Saudi royal family, billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz. "That's the Damocles sword effect. He's holding it above my head to intimidate me and others," she said.

The source of the trouble is Ehrenfeld's book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," published by Bonus Books. In it, she named bin Mahfouz as a financier of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz responded by suing Ehrenfeld -- not in the U.S., but in England, which is friendlier to libel claims.

Bin Mahfouz maintains Ehrenfeld's statements about him are false and reckless and says she is perpetuating myths that have followed him around the globe, endangering his business affairs.

It isn't the first time bin Mahfouz has been tied to bin Laden -- or the first time he has responded by filing a lawsuit. On his personal Web site, he lists the lawsuits he has filed and corrections and apologies he has obtained from some of the leading newspapers in the world.

Ehrenfeld calls bin Mahfouz a "libel tourist" who has used British law to try to halt her investigative work. She has the support in written court filings of Amazon.com, PEN American Center, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and others who worry that litigants such as bin Mahfouz have a chilling effect on American publishers who sell books globally.

The New York Legislature seems to agree. The state Senate last month passed a bill to enable New York writers and publishers to block enforcement of any British libel judgment. The state Assembly is taking up the legislation.

In court papers, bin Mahfouz's lawyers say the Saudi financier never intended to get at Ehrenfeld's assets in New York and would drop his claims if she would apologize and destroy unsold copies of the book. But when asked by a federal appeals court to waive his right to enforce the judgment in the U.S., bin Mahfouz declined. His lawyers insist that Ehrenfeld is the one who has stoked the controversy to promote book sales.

No 1st Amendment here

Turning to British courts is not new for aggrieved international plaintiffs. England has nothing like a 1st Amendment, which provides constitutional protection for writers in the U.S. Under British law, an author ay have to prove a statement is true.

American actors such as Cameron Diaz and Kate Hudson have used British courts to sue a tabloid. In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, wealthy Saudis have chosen Britain as the forum to defend themselves from the writings of U.S.-based authors who have tried to penetrate the opaque realm of terror finance.

Craig Unger, who wrote the best seller "House of Bush, House of Saud," said his publisher, Random House, decided not to publish the book in Britain due to fears of a libel action. It was eventually distributed by another publisher. "I was disappointed with [Random House's] decision, but clearly U.K. libel laws are far more onerous for publishers than are American laws," Unger said.

Bin Mahfouz is one of the wealthiest people in the world, with a fortune estimated in the billions. His father, Salim, built the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia and became banker to the Saudi royal family, a position Khalid inherited. (He has since sold his shares.)

Khalid bin Mahfouz was also an outside director of Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which collapsed in the early 1990s amid allegations of money laundering, fraud, bribery and supporting terrorism. Bin Mahfouz denied any involvement in the bank's day-to-day activities but ended up paying a civil fine in New York of $225 million.

That is the backdrop for attempts by Ehrenfeld and others to tie bin Mahfouz to bin Laden, with Ehrenfeld writing that the Saudi bank he oversaw diverted money to an Islamic charity that funneled money to Al Qaeda.

"Mr. bin Mahfouz has publicly condemned terrorism and vehemently denies that he or his former bank have ever provided financial support for terrorism," said his lawyer in the United States, Timothy Finn.

Bin Mahfouz is a bit player in Ehrenfeld's book, mentioned only on a handful of pages. But that didn't keep him from suing her in London in 2004, saying his reputation in Britain had been damaged. "I saw [the court papers] and thought, 'Bin Mahfouz chose the wrong victim,'" Ehrenfeld said.

While Ehrenfeld may have thought her book safe from the reach of British courts, she was wrong. Because it had sold two dozen copies in England via the Internet, and because some portions had been excerpted on a Web site, a British judge ruled that Ehrenfeld must defend herself across the Atlantic.

Ehrenfeld decided not to appear in England to contest the lawsuit, preferring instead to fight back in other ways. The second edition of her book contained the tag line "The book the Saudis don't want you to read" and a new introduction referring to bin Mahfouz's lawsuit.

This did not pass unnoticed by the British court overseeing bin Mahfouz's case.

Costly judgment

"It appears, therefore, that the defendants are trying to cash in on the fact that libel proceedings have been brought against them in this jurisdiction without being prepared to defend them on the merits," the presiding judge wrote in 2005. The court hit Ehrenfeld with a judgment of close to $20,000 and an order to pay bin Mahfouz's legal bills, which ranged beyond $200,000. It also found that Ehrenfeld's allegations toward bin Mahfouz were false as a matter of law.

Then Ehrenfeld again went on the offensive. She filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an order to prevent bin Mahfouz from enforcing his British judgment in the U.S. Her cause was supported in a brief filed by a host of organizations.

But the federal court decided it didn't have sufficient jurisdiction over a foreign national such as bin Mahfouz. An appeals court asked bin Mahfouz's lawyers whether they would promise not to enforce the judgment; they declined.

And last month a New York court ruled that state courts could not block bin Mahfouz. Ehrenfeld was surprised by the outcome, which led to the effort in the state Legislature to pass a bill to protect her and other writers from foreign judgments.

"She is the example right now," said state Sen. Dean Skelos, who co-sponsored the bill.

The bill passed the state Senate unanimously but has run into trouble in the Assembly. An advisory committee to the state court administrator opposes the bill, saying it may be unconstitutional.

So Ehrenfeld sits in her apartment and awaits news from Albany.

And if she can force bin Mahfouz into an American court, she will seek the answers she has been chasing for years. "If I get this law, I will ask the court to depose him," she said. "This is really why I started this whole thing."

----------

joliphant@tribune.com

The worst case scenario

British libel law means our press is vulnerable and the wealthy are shielded from criticism
by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Guardian, Thursday February 28 2008

For years journalists have grumbled about the libel laws and no one has listened, but when a distant legislature passes a law of its own to counteract the intolerable effects of the British courts then it's time to take notice. The most startling recent legal story comes not from the high court but from Albany, where the New York state legislature has introduced the starkly named Libel Terrorism Prevention Act, intended specifically to guard writers and publishers outside British jurisdiction from the terrors of English libel law.

In recent decades, "libel tourism" has become a lucrative trade for London lawyers. Foreign celebrities turn up to sue British papers or US magazines with insignificant British circulations. The late Telly Savalas was one of the first, winning an action here that he couldn't even have begun in the US. Roman Polanski was allowed to give evidence from France to London by video link when he sued Vanity Fair, a New York magazine. Since he's wanted in California, he couldn't set foot in London for fear of being extradited.

But what has brought this to a head are several even more grotesque cases. The powerful Saudi businessman Sheikh Kalid bin Mahfouz sued over a book by two Americans which alleged he was associated with the funding of Islamic militants: hence the lurid name of the New York law. Only a few copies were sold in the UK, but damages were paid and the remaining copies were pulped.

Our libel law has always been heavily weighted in favour of the plaintiff. Unlike the defendant in a criminal case or other civil suits - or in a US libel action - he is assumed to be in the wrong, and must prove that "the words complained of" are true. Under "no win, no fee", the plaintiff is gambling someone else's money, while the defendant is on a hiding to nothing. "True as to fact or fair as to comment" are the classic defences, but fair comment is subjective, and any attempt to justify or prove truth can be held to aggravate the gravity of the libel. And a defendant is at the mercy of the caprice of juries and the malice of judges.

Many years ago, after Evelyn Waugh had won large damages from the Daily Express, he shrewdly told a friend that the millions of readers of the Express secretly detested the paper and were glad of any chance to punish it. That helps explain the half-million damages awarded against a tabloid by Jeffrey Archer - one of a long line who have won actions by plain lying.

Following the case brought by Albert Reynolds, the former Irish prime minister, there is now a partial defence of public interest. But our media have nothing like the protection that the US press has been afforded since the New York Times won the Sullivan case in 1964. Any American public figure bringing an action now has to prove that what was written was not only untrue but published maliciously and recklessly.

In Britain, we now have the worst of all worlds. Obscure people are hounded by the gutter press, but the libel laws shield "malefactors of great wealth" from criticism and make our courts a playground for the international rich. The Reynolds rule, like so many recent checks on an oppressive state, came from judges rather than parliament, but it really is time for comprehensive legislation, a new Fox's Libel Act.

This would provide a statutory defence of public interest. It would remove the burden of proof from the defendant. It would end the nonsense of a person from one foreign country suing in London a person from another over something published in a third country. And better still, it would assimilate libel to slander, where the plaintiff must show actual material damage suffered.

The only trouble is that laws have to be passed by parliament. And there are few people keener on using and abusing the libel courts than politicians.

wheaty@compuserve.com

New York passes law against 'libel tourists'

Times Online Op-Ed

The state will protect authors against foreign libel judgments after a US journalist was sued by a Saudi businessman in London.  Politicians in New York have acted to protect the state’s writers and publishers from so-called libel tourism after an English libel judgment went against an American author.

The Libel Terrorism Protection Act was given a unanimous passage in the state Senate in Albany, the New York Law Journal reported. The new bill was introduced after the New York Court of Appeals ruled in December that the state’s laws did not protect Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American author, from a possible bid by a Saudi Arabian businessman to enforce a summary judgment issued by the High Court in London.

The bill is intended to amend New York’s so-called "long-arm statute" in order to give the state’s courts jurisdiction over a foreign libel claimant who won a judgment against an author or publisher with sufficient physical or financial ties to the state.

It would allow New York’s courts to declare that a foreign judgment was unenforceable if the courts decided that the libel laws in foreign jurisdictions did not protect freedom of speech and the press to the same extent as the laws in New York and the US.
Related Links

The New York Law Journal reported that the Bill had made “unusually swift” progress since being introduced into the legislature and said new legislation usually took several months, or even years, to reach the floor of the Assembly or Senate.

Dr Ehrenfeld claimed her book, Funding Evil, in which she makes a series of allegations about the charitable activities of wealthy Saudi businessman Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, was protected under the freedom of speech section of the US constitution.

But in a 17-page ruling by Judge Ciparick in December, the New York Court of Appeals in Albany ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over Mr Mahfouz as they found he had not carried out any business in the state.

The Sheikh has always vehemently denied any link with terrorism, or terrorist support or funding, and claimed that the book was defamatory in suggesting that he supported al-Qaeda and terrorism either directly or indirectly.

In January, Democratic Assemblyman Rory Lancman and Republican Senator Dean Skelos introduced the “Libel Terrorism Protection Act” to remedy what they see as a deficiency in the law.

Mr Lancman said: “This legislation will give New York’s journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York’s place as the free speech capitol of the world.”

Mr Skelos added: “The ability to expose the truth about international terrorist activities is critically-important to the global war on terror.

“These foreign courts are trampling the First Amendment protections guaranteed to American writers and journalists by our Constitution and this legislation will ensure that they cannot infringe upon our freedom.”

Senator Martin Golden, who supports the legislation, said: “Under the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, writers and journalists would have foreign defamation suits declared unenforceable in New York unless the foreign law provides the same free speech protections guaranteed under our Constitution.

“In effect, we are giving New Yorkers a chance to have their fair day in court.”

In court papers filed last year, Dr Ehrenfeld described Mr Mahfouz as a “serial libel tourist”.

Her book was never published in the UK but 23 copies entered England.

Mr Mahfouz, who denies all the allegations in the book about the funding of terrorist organisations, turned to English law and brought a successful libel action against her three years ago.

Mr Mahfouz has had a series of victories in English courts, and in August last year, the Cambridge University Press withdrew all copies of Alms for Jihad, a book which took a similar line to Dr Ehrenfeld.

But some American librarians have refused the publishers’ request to withdraw the book from their shelves and surviving copies are for sale for hundreds of pounds on the internet.

NY court: Saudi billionaire can pursue British claims in the U.S.

By LARRY NEUMEISTER Associated Press Writer,  NewsDay.com March 3, 2008

NEW YORK - The author of a book about financing terrorism can't prevent a Saudi billionaire from trying to enforce a London libel verdict in the United States, a federal appeals court said Monday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Manhattan author Rachel Ehrenfeld's lawsuit to stop the billionaire, Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz, from trying to collect on a default judgment obtained against Ehrenfeld in London.

Ehrenfeld's attorney, Daniel Kornstein, said he was disappointed by the ruling.

"This is a matter that's not only about Rachel Ehrenfeld. It's about New York writers and publishers generally and their ability to investigate and speak their minds on matter of urgent public interest," he said.

Stephen J. Brogan, a lawyer for Bin Mahfouz, did not immediately return a phone message requesting comment.

The Saudi businessman has made claims against authors and journalists more than two dozen times over writings on terrorism and those who fund it, including Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed _ and How to Stop It."

Ehrenfeld wrote that Bin Mahfouz and his family provided financial support to al-Qaida and other "Islamist terror groups."

A 2005 ruling by London's High Court of Justice ordered Ehrenfeld to pay Bin Mahfouz $225,000, declare her writings about him to be false, destroy existing copies of the book and apologize.

Ehrenfeld had then asked a Manhattan court to declare that the London judgment was unenforceable in the United States. A lower court previously said the matter was out of its jurisdiction.

Bin Mahfouz has not tried to collect on the London judgment in the United States.

New York state has a so-called "long-arm" law, which establishes jurisdiction for almost anyone who does business in New York. But New York's Court of Appeals previously found that it does not apply to Bin Mahfouz's case.

The 2nd Circuit also said Monday that Ehrenfeld had failed to asked the lower court to decide whether the First Amendment entitled her to a ruling in her favor and thus could not argue for such a ruling from the appeals court.

Two state lawmakers are trying to pass legislation that would protect authors and journalists who write about terrorism from limitations imposed as a result of foreign libel lawsuits. The court refused to delay its decision until that legislative effort is concluded.

An important message from Dr. Rachel Ehernfeld

EhrenfeldThis Sunday, January 13th at 10:30 a.m. on the steps of the New
York Public Library, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, I urge you to attend
a bipartisan news conference by New York State Senate Deputy Majority
Leader Dean Skelos and Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman where they will
announce legislation designed to protect journalists, author and
publishers s from lawsuits filed outside the U.S. by foreign nationals
seeking to muzzle the First Amendment rights of American citizens,
particular those reporting on terrorism and its financiers.

This effort comes on the heels of a New York Court of Appeals ruling
that has stunned many in the legal, media, and publishing community. The
court held it could not protect New York author Rachel Ehrenfeld from a
British lawsuit she lost by default filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid
Salim bin Mahfouz where she was ordered to pay over $225,000 for
detailing in her book how Bin Mahfouz, and some of his family, are
allegedly tied to funding terrorist organizations. Bin Mahfouz used the
U.K. legal system to obtain more than 36 similar judgments, affecting
the U.S. media.

Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a court order to protect her Constitutional rights,
but in a ruling with First Amendment implications sending legal
shockwaves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially
undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical
support networks of our enemies, the New York Court of Appeals ruled
that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil –
from a foreign defamation verdict.

The two lawmakers, Ehrenfeld, and members of the bar, will warn that
without this legislation, the contents of the New York Public Library
could be subject to assault by off shore nationals seeking to silence
public debate in America. Your participation would add enormously to
this effort and underscore the gravity of the threat.

Tracking bin Laden's money flow leads back to Midland, Texas

by Wayne Madsen in  In These Times    

On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden to announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and those who support them. "U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts," Bush declared. "And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them."

But the president, who is now enjoying an astounding 92 percent approval rating, hasn't always practiced what he is now preaching: Bush's own businesses were once tied to financial figures in Saudi Arabia who currently support bin Laden.

In 1979, Bush's first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden's, in Arbusto.

In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact, Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to fund Osama bin Laden. BCCI defrauded depositors of $10 billion in the '80s in what has been called the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" by former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During the '80s, BCCI also acted as a main conduit for laundering money intended for clandestine CIA activities, ranging from financial support to the Afghan mujahedin to paying intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair.

When Salem bin Laden died in 1988, powerful Saudi Arabian banker and BCCI principal Khalid bin Mahfouz inherited his interests in Houston. Bath ran a business for bin Mahfouz in Houston and joined a partnership with bin Mahfouz and Gaith Pharaon, BCCI's frontman in Houston's Main Bank.

The Arbusto deal wasn't the last time Bush looked to highly questionable sources to invest in his oil dealings. After several incarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation. When Harken ran into trouble a year later, Saudi Sheik Abdullah Taha Bakhsh purchased a 17.6 percent stake in the company. Bakhsh was a business partner with Pharaon in Saudi Arabia; his banker there just happened to be bin Mahfouz.

Though Bush told the Wall Street Journal he had "no idea" BCCI was involved in Harken's financial dealings, the network of connections between Bush and BCCI is so extensive that the Journal concluded their investigation of the matter in 1991 by stating: "The number of BCCI-connected people who had dealings with Harken—all since George W. Bush came on board—raises the question of whether they mask an effort to cozy up to a presidential son." Or even the president: Bath finally came under investigation by the FBI in 1992 for his Saudi business relationships, accused of funneling Saudi money through Houston in order to influence the foreign policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

Worst of all, bin Mahfouz allegedly has been financing the bin Laden terrorist network—making Bush a U.S. citizen who has done business with those who finance and support terrorists. According to USA Today, bin Mahfouz and other Saudis attempted to transfer $3 million to various bin Laden front operations in Saudi Arabia in 1999. ABC News reported the same year that Saudi officials stopped bin Mahfouz from contributing money directly to bin Laden. (Bin Mahfouz's sister is also a wife of Osama bin Laden, a fact that former CIA Director James Woolsey revealed in 1998 Senate testimony.)

When President Bush announced he is hot on the trail of the money used over the years to finance terrorism, he must realize that trail ultimately leads not only to Saudi Arabia, but to some of the same financiers who originally helped propel him into the oil business and later the White House. The ties between bin Laden and the White House may be much closer than he is willing to acknowledge.

Wayne Madsen, an investigative journalist based in Washington, is the author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999.

Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?

by Alyssa A. Lappen

Unless the U.S. Congress and New York legislatures act immediately to stop them, foreign terror financiers and libel tourists now can essentially impose sharia (Islamic) law on American writers and publishers.

Intended or not, a narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision on Thursday Dec. 20, 2007 produces that net effect. The ruling concerns jurisdiction in Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's suit against Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, seeking a federal declaratory judgment against him to render unenforceable in the U.S. a U.K. High Court default "libel" decision. By implication, the New York Appeals Court ruling harms all publishers and writers in New York, the world's publishing capital.

Ehrenfeld's case stems from her 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It, where American Center for Democracy Director reports Mahfouz' well-documented terror funding. (Full disclosure: Since September 2005, I've been an ACD Senior Fellow.) As always after such terror financing reports, Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain. His attorneys informed U.K. High Court Justice David Eady that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote her book's foreword. "Say no more," Eady replied. "I award you a judgment by default, and if you want, an injunction, too."

Eady then ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay Mahfouz $225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies of her book. Instead, she ignored the British default judgment and false libel claim—never tried on its merits—and asked the Southern District Court of New York to rule the U.K. judgment unenforceable here.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court's seminal 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision defined libel or slander by a journalist as stating or writing falsehoods or misrepresentations that damage someone's reputation—and in cases of public figures, doing so with malice.

Under sharia, by contrast, libel constitutes any oral or written remark offensive to a complainant, regardless of its accuracy or intent. Slander "means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him," according to Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368). 1

Repeat: Sharia regards even the truth as slander if its subject dislikes the facts. Now applied through foreign courts, sharia law interpretations of libel have demonstrably undermined U.S. press viability already. Though Mahfouz never proved merits in any libel case, he has threatened or sued more than 35 journalists and publishers (including many in the U.S.) through Britain's High Court, and exacted fines, apologies and retractions from all but Ehrenfeld. Last Thursday, New York's Appeals Court substantially (if not intentionally) allowed the application of sharia rules here.

New York State recently held that it can collect sales taxes from "commercial" enterprises with as little physical presence as a single link on any New York-based website. While temporarily reversed on November 15, the state's controversial opinion will be enforced after the 2007 Christmas season.

Yet, also by New York fiat, Constitutional First Amendment rights now take a back seat to the state's conservative "long-arm" statutes—which protect distant commercial enterprises from state courts. A Saudi national suing an American journalist in Britain, Mahfouz hired numerous New York agents and couriers and used many New York electronic and telephone communication systems expressly to halt Ehrenfeld's investigations and publications concerning terror finance. However, on Dec. 20 the New York Appeals Court established Mahfouz' New York-based commercial transactions as less commercial (or significant) than a distant merchant's sales link on a New York-based website.

In its unanimous June 8, 2007 request for a local ruling on jurisdiction, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel specifically extended as wide a berth as possible to the New York Court of Appeals to consider First Amendment rights within the context of Ehrenfeld's case.

However, the New York Court ignored the federal instructions to consider Constitutional issues—or the effects this case will consequently have on Constitutional rights in the world's publishing capital. "However pernicious the effect of this practice [libel tourism] may be, our duty here is to determine whether defendant's New York contacts establish a proper basis for jurisdiction," wrote Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, an appointee of former Governor Mario Cuomo.

Shockingly, New York's Court of Appeals allowed Mahfouz' commercial actions (and any similar commercial actions of any other foreign terror financier and libel tourist) to subjugate Constitutional First Amendment rights to archaic commercial statutes.

Now, the U.S. Congress and New York legislators must swiftly enact new "long-arm" statues, suitable to our electronic age, before further damage to the U.S. Constitution ensues.

NOTE:

1Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368), Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, 1991 and 1994, Amana Publications (revised ed., 1994), p. 730.

Alyssa A. Lappen, an American Center for Democracy Senior Fellow and American Congress for Truth Contributing Editor, is a former senior editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance and former associate editor of Forbes.

Insufferable British Judges, Wimpy New York Ones.

Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued in Britain by a Saudi zillionaire who didn't
like what she said about his "well-documented terror funding."

As always after such terror financing reports, Mahfouz sued
Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain. His attorneys informed U.K. High Court
Justice David Eady that former CIA director R. James Woolsey wrote her
book's foreword. "Say no more," Eady replied. "I award you a judgment by
default, and if you want, an injunction, too."

Eady then ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize, retract, pay Mahfouz
$225,913.37 in damages and destroy remaining copies of her book.

This a sad reminder that the "Special Relationship" between Britain and
the U.S. does not exists in the minds of some British officials. The
judge's ignorance is also apparent in his conclusion that a former CIA
director had contributed to Ms. Ehrenfeld's book. In this gentleman's
mind, the CIA is local galactic outlet for satanic gamma waves.

Your Colonel has read no small number of books about British
intelligence and counterintelligence operations and disasters over the
years and could not call to mind in a two-second period the personal
characteristics of any of the officials who headed the relevant
agencies, let alone say anything intelligent about their characters or
overall effectiveness. But Her Majesty's Justice Eady knew in a
heartbeat that Mr. Woolsey was a species of lowlife. Obviously, he knew
nothing about Mr. Woolsey and was eager to punish Ms. Ehrenfeld for her
having a connection to the despised CIA.

Didn't this start out as a libel action? I'm just asking, is all.

Ms. Lappen's piece discusses the issue of how "connected" litigants need
to be to justify the assertion of jurisdiction over them. If memory
serves me, Ms. Ehrenfeld did not directly market her book in Britain
and, on the basis of only some six or seven books that made their way to
Britain, the British court asserted jurisdiction over her for purposes
of a libel action. New York courts, whose judges must surely drink their
afternoon tea with their pinkies raised in the air, chose not to find
jurisdiction in New York over the Saudi funder of terror notwithstanding
his far more substantial activities in New York.

Ms. Ehrenfeld is the only one sued by this putz not to lie down like a
cur dog when sued. Would that New York judges had as much spine as this
woman.

"Does Sharia Libel Law Now Apply in the U.S.?"
By Alyssa A. Lappen, Pajamas Media, 1/2/08
(also of interest for discussion of Islamic libel law. Cliff Notes
version: The truth hurts. So pay me).

Ehrenfeld: British Libel Judgment Upheld by NY Court; First Amendment Implications Debated

A New York state appeals court ruled in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz that it did not have jurisdiction to declare a British libel judgment unenforceable on First Amendment grounds.  In 2005, a British court ordered American author Rachel Ehrenfeld to pay $60,000 for accusing a Saudi billionaire of having ties to terrorism in her 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It.  Ehrenfeld claims that as a result of the judgment, she has abandoned certain projects and watered down others in order to comply with British libel laws.  Though Mahfouz had not yet tried to enforce the British judgment, she asked a domestic court to declare it unenforceable on the grounds that it would violate federal and state free speech laws.  The court declined to do so.

So far, commentators are split on the significance on the Ehrenfeld ruling.  The New York Sun described the case as a test of how state courts would respond when US authors seek to block foreign judgments that conflict with the First Amendment, adding that the decision reflects a disturbing trend in "libel tourism" that promotes law suits against authors and journalists in nations where libel laws are more favorable to plaintiffs than in the US.  In line with that view, Findlaw's Julie Hilden predicts that Ehrenfeld will have "significant First Amendment implications" in an age of global internet e-publishing.  Yet attorney Douglas Lee's post at The First Amendment Center describes Ehrenfeld as a relatively "routine" case grounded in rules of civil procedure that prevent New York courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over a foreign judgment holder who has not yet attempted to enforce the judgment.  Had Mahfouz tried to enforce the British judgment in New York, jurisdiction would have attached, bringing into focus the First Amendment concerns related to "libel tourism."   

-Kathleen A. Bergin