We Won't Win the War on Terror if the Story Can't be Told

Mark Steyn pens an absolutely horrifying scenario in this piece (read the whole thing - he'll say it a thousand times better than I will anyway). The story is about what has happened to a book written by two Americans about the terrorist financial system and includes allegations against one very powerful Saudi in particular.

The book is no longer available via Amazon. In London, the University Press is buying back unsold copies. Why? England has some intense libel laws that heavily favor the plantiff and this particular Saudi has tons of cash to burn to prevent books like this one from being read. Even the anti-Bush crowd pleaser House of Saud, House of Bush is unavailable in Britain because of this guy.

The book in question is called Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World and it exposes the truth about Muslim "charities." And the powerful Saudi? Well, perhaps I should let Steyn tell that part:

Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.

We will never win the war on terror if the truth about these charities is never told. Western civilization continues to give our Islamofascist enemies every creature comfort while yielding not an inch in return. I am still amazed that in some corners of the world the closest thing to a soldier being deployed in this fight is a lawyer in a courtroom.

If the war on terror continues to be fought in courtrooms the world over, this war will never be won. The rule of law is stacked against Western civilization in this case and we have no one but ourselves to blame. Can you imagine instead of fighting World War II, we decided to take Japan to court? We'd all be speaking German today because we'd have lost that one too.

We must not be afraid to tell the truth. This is why the John Doe Law was so important. If you see something, report it and fear not the consequences of being sued. We are at war, after all. Why should we take a different approach about exposing the money men who fund these operations?