|
|
 |
|
| Thought Leaders: Policy |
Recurrent Suspicion
Ibrahim Warde
11/01/2007
|
With ideologically driven terrorism, it is not the proceeds of
crime that are laundered, but clean money, usually undetectable by banks, that
is soiled. The distinction is crucial, though it was lost in the rush to devise
a swift and tough response following Sept. 11. The high-profile nature of the
financial war on terror has also given potential terrorists ample notice about
how not to get caught—which has often meant shunning the financial system
altogether.
What the financial war on terrorism has produced, and what has
become the measure of its success, is the sheer magnitude of databases and
volume of bureaucratic business. In the words of former Treasury secretary Paul
O’Neill, "Too often there is an acceptance of activity for progress." When in
December 2005, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission assigned letter grades to the
government for its conduct of the war on terror, the commission gave its best
grade to the effort against terrorist financing. In an otherwise dismal report
card, the government received an A-minus for its "vigorous effort against
terrorist financing."
In this context, lawmakers are loath to change the status quo.
A notable exception is Ron Paul, the iconoclastic Texas representative and
Republican candidate for president who opposed both the Patriot Act and the war
in Iraq. Paul said: "Aside from raising serious concerns about the government’s
respect for individual privacy, a system with this amount of false positives
diverts valuable law enforcement resources away from the investigation of real
terrorist threats, to the harassment of innocent citizens."
Ibrahim Warde teaches international business at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, Medford, Mass., and is the author of
The Price of Fear: The Truth
Behind the Financial War on Terror.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
