The First Amendment vs. Financial Jihad

Jamie Glazov, of FrontPageMagazine.com interviewed Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, and a member of the Terror Financial Blog team:

Ehrenfeld "has a 25-year track-record of following terrorist financing, especially Islamic radical groups and states. In the late 1980’ she identified how Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Iran bankrolled terrorism, and how they developed Islamic banking to advance the Islamic agenda.

Ehrenfed, a Ph.D. in criminology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has published hundreds of articles and 3 books on these issues. Her last book Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It, documents who funds terrorism, as well as the expansion of radical Islam.

"Funding Evil" accused Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire from Jeddah, of funding terrorism. Mahfouz, who is notorious for using British libel laws to silence those who expose him, sued Dr. Ehrenfeld in a British court and she was ordered to destroy all copies of her book in England. She is now counter-suing Mahfouz in the United States.

A new short-form documentary film, The Libel Tourist, has just recently been released, documenting Dr. Ehrenfeld’s experience.

To watch The Libel Tourist, click here.
FP: Dr. Ehrenfeld, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Ehrenfeld: Thank you, Jamie. It is a pleasure.

FP: So let’s start at the beginning. Who sued you and for what reason?

Ehrenfeld: Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, former owner of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, the royal family banker, and founder and owner of the Muwafaq Foundation, which funded al- Qaeda and Hamas, sued me for libel in London, soon after my book Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It, was published in the U.S. In 2003. He claims that he never knowingly funded terrorism. I never said he “knowingly” did.

FP: Why did this individual sue you in the U.K?

Ehrenfeld: Unlike the U.S. where free speech is protected constitutionally, the libel laws in the UK. are pro-plaintiff.

FP: Can you talk a bit more on this issue of libel laws? Expand for us on how free speech is protected constitutionally in the U.S. in this context and also how the libel laws in the UK. are pro-plaintiff.

Ehrenfeld: Unlike American laws, where free speech is protected by the First Amendment, and truth is the complete defense, England’s libel laws favor the individual’s rights over the public. They put the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Moreover, there are harsh restrictions on the evidence that writers can present in their defense. U.S. libel laws put the burden of proof on the public figure who claims he has been defamed; the Plaintiff has to prove that the writer was wrong and that he published the false information recklessly and maliciously.

Moreover, the British threshold for establishing “jurisdiction,” is very low, thus accepting bin Mahfouz’s claim against me, based on 23 copies of my book Funding Evil, which were sold in the U.K. However, the book, which was just published only in the U.S., was most likely purchased by his representatives over the Internet -- in order to claim jurisdiction.

British laws earned the U.K. the label—“libel capital of the Western world.” Bin Mahfouz, and other terror financiers, known as “libel tourists,” use the British laws to veil in secrecy their funding of al Qaeda, other Islamic terror organizations and global propagation of radical Islam. Bin Mahfouz’s legal “victories” in London - he never won on merit- had the desired affect he and other Saudi terror financiers sought: silencing of the media even in the U.S. where the First Amendment protects writers and publishers. But most American book and newspaper publishers are not willing to risk expensive lawsuits in London. In fact, most refuse to publish even the most comprehensively documented reports on alleged wealthy Middle Eastern funding terrorism. And most refrain from writing about this case.

FP: Who else did this Saudi sue? What differentiates you from the other parties?

Ehrenfeld: Bin Mahfouz threatened and or sued more than 36 publishers and authors, including many Americans who exposed unpleasant details about him. All apologized and retracted. Many paid the huge legal fees to his legal team in the U.K., as well as penalties and “contributions” to charities of his choice. Some (23), but not all are listed on his website. None of the other American writers or publishers challenged the jurisdiction of the British court, and European and British writers and publishers, did not have much choice.

I alone refused to acknowledge the British court, and declined to comply with its demands and default judgment – and furthermore countersued him in the U.S.

FP: How come you were not like all the others? How come they all apologized, retracted, paid legal fees etc., and you declined to comply etc.?

Ehrenfeld: Your question is better directed at them. I can not speculate on their decisions. Undoubtedly though, monitory and financial considerations were a premier concern; with British libel laws stuck against them, all who have property in the U.K. had a lot to lose. But since there is so much officially documented information about bin Mahfouz’s alleged financing of al- Qaeda, one could have expected that the media would challenge him and stop his campaign to silence his critics. Indeed, the Wall St. Journal fought successfully a multi-million dollar libel lawsuit brought against the paper by the Saudi Arabian businessman Mohammed Jameel. The House of Lords ruled in favor of the Journal reporting that Jameel have been investigated by the Saudis at the request of US authorities, to ensure that neither he nor his company funded terrorist groups. Lord Hoffman said that preventing publications of articles, which are “in the public interest, is too risky and would discourage investigative reporting.”

FP: What are the consequences of the U.K. lawsuits on the American media?

Ehrenfeld: The consequences are very grave. Bin Mahfouz single handedly stopped all American newspapers and publishers, not to mention individual reporters, from covering him specifically, and most Saudi terror financiers, in general. Apparently, through him, the Saudis have successfully imposed a wholesale chilling effect on U.S. instigative reporting on Saudi terror financing.

FP: What can we do about these consequences of the U.K. lawsuits?

Ehrenfeld: We can counter-sue in the U.S., as I have done. And although my case is still pending (we are awaiting the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals on jurisdiction), on June 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously declared my case is “ripe” for hearing in a U.S. court, noting that the case has implications for all U.S. authors and publishers, whose First Amendment rights are threatened by foreign libel rulings.

The ruling thus established that all U.S. writers and publishers sued for libel in other countries, can ask U.S. courts to rule the foreign decisions unenforceable here - provided they have jurisdiction over the person who sued for libel overseas. This important legal decision weakened bin Mahfouz’ ability to threaten or sue U.S. authors and publishers. Shortly afterwards, bin Mahfouz threatened to sue Cambridge University Press (CUP), the publisher of Alms of Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, but refrained from including the book’s two American writers, J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins.

Winning my case against bin Mahfouz will not change the British ruling against me. But judging by the impact my case has had already one can hope that U.K. , and the House of Lords ruling in favor of the Wall St. Journal in the Jameel case, U.K. writers and publishers would be encouraged to demand changing their libel laws, to allow the freedom of responsible publications without the fear of intimidating, expensive lawsuits.

If foreigners wish to sue Americans for exposing threats to our national security, they are welcome do so in the U.S., under the First Amendment laws. But Congress should terminate this form of Financial Jihad – silencing the media by intimidation – and costly foreign libel suits on matters governed by U.S. jurisdiction.

To better protect our freedom of speech, Congress could reinforce the First Amendment with a new statute prohibiting enforcement of foreign libel judgments in the U.S., whenever American authors and publishers report responsibly on terror -related and other national security threats.

We are at war with enormously wealthy and determined enemies. We should prevent their use of their tremendous wealth to deprive American writers of their constitutional rights to expose actions that threaten our safety and freedoms.

FP: So you are now fighting back, counter-suing Mahfouz in New York. Tell us exactly what inspired you to counter-sue.

Ehrenfeld: As an American citizen I see no reason to abide by English law, since we declared our independence from Britain in 1776. I felt that this matter should be resolved by U.S. Courts within U.S. jurisdiction.

FP: Has any other American counter-sued him in the U.S.?

Ehrenfeld: None.

FP: There are impressive Amice Briefs in your case by major American publishers. Has anyone offered financial support? After all, you are fighting to protect everybody’s freedom of speech.

Ehrenfeld: I have received no financial support from any publisher.

FP: Why do you think your case has not reached the mainstream media?

Ehrenfeld: There is no logical explanation. Except that maybe they are afraid of offending the Saudis, in which case, it would further evidence my point.

FP: What are the personal implications of this case on you?

Ehrenfeld: Apparently, Saudi influence on the media, politics and business interests is so pervasive that only the most courageous and honorable, professionals, colleagues and friends have stood by me. Others keep a silent distance--and some even try to harm me.

FP: What is the significance of this case in relation to national security?

Ehrenfeld: One of the most important foundations of American Democracy is freedom of the press. Bin Mahfouz's libel suits are an important part of an enormous campaign to severely curtail press and media willingness and ability to freely investigate and report the great financial powers diligently working to destroy our nation and indeed the entire Western civilization.

FP: Dr. Ehrenfeld, thank you for joining us. And thank you for your valiant and courageous fight for freedom.

Enhrenfeld: Thank you, Jamie. I appreciate the opportunity Frontpage Magazine has given me to be heard.