"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Department Of Justice’

Money-Laundering Banks Still Get a Pass From U.S. Justice System

In Uncategorized on April 1, 2013 at 7:16 pm

https://i1.wp.com/www.cfoinnovation.com/system/files/cfo/money_laundering.jpgOldspeak: “Look North Korea is threatening us! Look! Rush Limbaugh said something about President Obama! Look! A D.A. got shot in Texas. Look! We need gun control now! Meanwhile those fortunate enough to be in America’s 1st tier of justice flout the law,  profit from downturns, war and the illegal drug trade. Their punishment? Earnest protestations and little else from Law Enforcement: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.” –Attorney General Eric Holder  “Yes, well, that could explain it. When the banks hold a gun to the head of the economy, it is no longer the relationship between regulator and regulated, but a hostage relationship. A relationship made even more complex, no doubt, by the fact that the hostage-taker is also the principal corporate funder of the bosses of the putative hostage negotiators.” –Mike Lofgren This class based application of justice is not sustainable. These banksters who are holding our financial, political and justice systems hostage are subverting liberty and justice for all. They’re subverting democracy, and government by the people. It cannot continue.

By Simon Johnson @ Bloomberg News:

Money laundering by large international banks has reached epidemic proportions, and U.S. authorities are supposedly looking into Citigroup Inc. (C) and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Governor Jerome Powell, on behalf of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, recently testified to Congress on the issue, and he sounded serious. But international criminals and terrorists needn’t worry. This is window dressing: Complicit bankers have nothing to fear from the U.S. justice system.

To be on the safe side, though, miscreants should be sure to use a really large global bank for all their money-laundering needs.

There may be fines, but the largest financial companies are unlikely to face criminal actions or meaningful sanctions. The Department of Justice has decided that these banks are too big to prosecute to the full extent of the law, though why this also gets employees and executives off the hook remains a mystery. And the Federal Reserve refuses to rescind bank licenses, undermining the credibility, legitimacy and stability of the financial system.

To see this perverse incentive program in action, consider the recent case of a big money-laundering bank that violated a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, openly broke U.S. securities law and stuck its finger in the eye of the Fed. This is what John Peace, the chairman of Standard Chartered Plc (STAN), and his colleagues managed to get away with March 5. The meaningful consequences for him or his company are precisely zero.

Chairman’s Statement

At one level, this is farce. Standard Chartered has long conceded that it broke U.S. money-laundering laws in spectacular and prolonged fashion. In late 2012, it entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, agreeing to pay a fine that amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist (in any case, such penalties are paid by shareholders, not management).

Then, on a March 5 conference call with investors, Peace denied that his bank and its employees had willfully broken U.S. law with their money-laundering activities. This statement was a clear breach of the deferred prosecution agreement (see paragraph 12 on page 10, where the bank agreed that none of its officers should make “any public statement contradicting the acceptance of responsibility by SCB set forth above or the facts described in the Factual Statement”). Any such statement constitutes a willful and material breach of the agreement.

This is where the theater of the absurd begins. For some reason, it took the bank 11 business days, not the required five, to issue a retraction. No doubt a number of people, in the private and public sectors, were asleep at the switch. (The Justice Department and Standard Chartered rebuffed my requests for details on the timeline.)

The implications of the affair are twofold. First, with his eventual retraction, Peace admitted that he misled investors. It also was an implicit admission that he had failed to issue a timely correction. Waiting 11 days to correct a material factual error is a serious breach of U.S. securities law for any nonfinancial company. Wake me when the Securities and Exchange Commission brings a case against Standard Chartered.

Of course, it’s possible that Peace didn’t deliberately violate the deferred prosecution agreement because he hadn’t read it, or at least not all the way to page 10. Peace is an accomplished professional with a long and distinguished track record. Everyone can have a forgetful moment. That still doesn’t explain why the bank took so long to correct the facts.

Leadership Matters

Tone at the top matters, as reporting around JPMorgan Chase and its relationship with regulators makes clear. Will Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon be more cooperative than he was, for example, in August 2011 when he refused to provide detailed information on the goings-on in his investment bank?

Why hasn’t Standard Chartered’s board, which is made up of talented and experienced individuals, forced out Peace as a result of this bungling? (I called for his resignation on my blog last week.)

The only possible explanation is that the board thinks Peace did nothing wrong. They may even regard U.S. laws as onerous and the Department of Justice as heavy-handed.

They would be entitled to their opinions, of course. But if they would like their bank to do business in the U.S., the rules are (supposedly) the rules. If used appropriately, permission to operate a bank in the U.S. grants the opportunity to earn a great deal of profit.

At a recent congressional hearing, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts asked what it would take for a company to lose its U.S. banking license. Specifically, “How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords?”

Powell, the Fed governor, replied that pulling a bank’s license may be “appropriate when there’s a criminal conviction.”

I have failed to find any cases of the Fed ordering the termination of banking activities in the U.S. for a foreign bank after a criminal conviction for money laundering. Nor, for that matter, has the Fed taken action to shut down a bank that signed a deferred prosecution agreement, which, in the case of Standard Chartered (STAN), was an acknowledgment of criminal wrongdoing. Nor has it taken action when such an agreement was violated.

To see what the Fed is empowered to do under the International Banking Act, and working with state authorities, look at the case of Daiwa Bank, which received an Order to Terminate United States Banking Activities in 1995. Note to big banks: Don’t allow illegal trading in the U.S. Treasury market; on this, we may still have standards. By the way, in the case of Daiwa, there was no criminal conviction.

Cleaning House

Last summer, when Barclays’s Chief Executive Officer Robert Diamond was less than fully cooperative with the Bank of England in providing details of the Libor scandal, he was gone within 24 hours. Any bank supervisor has the right and the obligation to force out a manager who impedes the proper functioning of the financial system.

The new CEO of Barclays (BARC) is trying to clean house. The obstreperous approach of the previous management set the tone for the entire organization, creating a mess of macroeconomic proportions.

Will any senior executives at Standard Chartered be forced out? Could the bank lose its ability to operate in the U.S.? Based on what we have seen so far, neither seems plausible.

If Standard Chartered violates its cease-and-desist order with the Fed, would it then lose its license? Not according to what Powell said in his congressional testimony. The Fed has no teeth whatsoever, at least when it comes to global megabanks, hence the continuing pattern of defiance from JPMorgan (JPM) and Dimon.

If you or I tried to launder money, even on a small scale, we would probably go to jail. But when the employees of a very big bank do so — on a grand scale and over many years — there are no meaningful consequences.

(Simon Johnson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management as well as a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is co-author of “White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters to You.” The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Simon Johnson at .

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net.

 

Advertisements

YES WE CAN! Obama Administration Affirms Right To Use The Military To Assassinate Americans On American Soil Without Due Process

In Uncategorized on March 6, 2013 at 3:36 pm

THE SINKHOLE OF LIBERTYOldspeak: “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” –U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. It’s official. You can be killed by the U.S. military on American soil at the whim of the President without due process or any discernible evidence of wrongdoing, suspicion and or accusation from an “Informed, high-level” administration official is all that is required. Never mind that it is a flagrant violation of the Posse Comitatus act. Never mind that it is a flagrant violation of the 5th & 6th amendments to the constitution. Never mind that there is no appropriateness under the constitution and applicable laws to extrajudicial killing as claimed in this executive branch decree. Your rights to freedom from being deprived of  life, without due process of law, have been suspended. With zero oversight from congress, the lawmaking body, that is supposed to represent the will of the people.   How much more will the power of the Unitary Executive be expanded before the people oppose it?”

By Washington’s Blog:

Because America Is a Battlefield In The Eyes of the Government

Attorney general Eric Holder wrote the following to Senator Rand Paul yesterday:

On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the Administration’s views about whether “the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.

There’s more to the following statement than appears at first blush:

As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.

Specifically, Holder did not say “we are legally constrained by the Constitution from depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and from using military force on U.S. soil”.  Instead, he said that the Obama administration was so far abstaining from using a power it already has as a current “policy” decision.

John Glaser notes:

The concluding legal opinion represents a radical betrayal of constitutional limits imposed on the state for depriving citizens of life, liberty and property. Officially now, Obama’s kingly authority to play Judge, Jury, and Executioner and deprive Americans of their life without due process of law applies not only to Americans abroad but to citizens that are inside the United States.

“The US Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” Sen. Paul said in a statement.

Holder, along with the Obama administration, is making it seem as if the President’s use of lethal force, as in the drone war, would only be used in circumstances like another impending 9/11 attack or something. Only when an attack is imminent.

But that categorical limitation on the President’s authority to kill depends upon their definition of “imminence,” which we learned from a leaked Justice Department white paper last month, is extremely broad.

The memo refers to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than what has traditionally been required, like actual intelligence of an ongoing plot against the US.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states, contradicting conventional international law.

Instead, so long as an “informed, high-level” US official claims the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” that pose a threat and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities,” then the President can order his assassination. The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

Holder also insists that in the case of such “extraordinary circumstances,” like another impending 9/11, he ”would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority.”

Boy, do I feel comforted.

This is not entirely surprising.  As we noted in December 2011, a top constitutional expert confirmed that Obama was claiming the authority to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil.   We reported that month:

For more than a year and a half, the Obama administration has said it could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process.

But now, as shown by the debates surrounding indefinite detention, the government is saying that America itself is a battlefield.

AP notes today:

U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

***

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson … said U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

The courts in habeas cases, such as those involving whether a detainee should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, make the determination of who can be considered an enemy combatant.

We pointed out a year ago, the director of the FBI said he’d have to “check” to see if the president had the authority to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil. We reported last October that form Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo – the guy who wrote the memo justifying torture, even of children, which was used to justify torture of innocent people, including children – said that the president has the power to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil in times of war.

And Mother Jones notes:

In a Google+ Hangout last month, President Obama refused to say directly if he had the authority to use lethal force against US citizens. As Mother Jones reported at the time, the reason the president was being so coy is that the answer was likely yes. Now we know that’s exactly what was happening.

It is not very reassuring that the same unaccountable agency which decides who should be killed by drones also spies on all Americans.

Indeed:

You might assume – in a vacuum – that this might be okay (even though it trashes the Constitution, the separation of military and police actions, and the division between internal and external affairs).

But it is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food. And see this.

And it is problematic in a period in which FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”, and even former Secretary of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – admitst hat he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.

And it is counter-productive in an age when the government – instead of doing the things which could actually make us safer – are doing things which increase the risk of terrorism.

And it is insane in a time of perpetual war. See this, this, this and this.

And when the “War on Terror” in the Middle East and North Africa which is being used to justify the attack on Americans was planned long before 9/11.

And when Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser told the Senate in 2007 that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”. And 9/11 was entirely foreseeable, but wasn’t stopped.   Indeed, no one in Washington even wants to hear how 9/11 happened, even though that is necessary to stop future terrorist attacks.  And the military has bombed a bunch of oil-rich countries when it could have instead taken out Bin Laden years ago.

As I noted in [an analogous context]:

The government’s indefinite detention policy – stripped of it’s spin – is literally insane, and based on circular reasoning. Stripped of p.r., this is the actual policy:

  • If you are an enemy combatant or a threat to national security, we will detain you indefinitely until the war is over
  • But trust us, we know you are an enemy combatant and a threat to national security

See how that works?

And – given that U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants – it is unlikely that the government would ever admit that an American citizen it assassinated was an innocent civilian who has nothing at all to do with terrorism.

Read this if you have any doubt as to how much liberty Americans have lost.

Senator Paul told MSNBC:

The response by Holder could lead to a situation where “an Arab-American in Dearborn (Mich.) is walking down the street emailing with a friend in the Mideast and all of a sudden we drop a drone” on him. He said it was “really shocking” that President Barack Obama, a former constitutional law professor, would leave the door open to such a possibility.

True … but you don’t have to be Arab-American to get in trouble.

The Obama Administrations Dick Cheney Moment

In Uncategorized on February 15, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Oldspeak: “”The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation… I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.” -Senator Barack Obama, 2007 Yes. YET ANOTHER instance of candidate Obama, saying one thing and President Obama doing the EXACT OPPOSITE. Near universal silence or worse, cheerleading among far too many so-called progressives, democrats, and liberals. It is ingenious really, how effectively Obama silences dissent from all quarters, simply by being himself. Charming, brilliant,  likeable, thoughtful, well-spoken, self-confident. Most fail to criticize and oppose his corprocratic agenda pushing policies, by choosing to only to pay attention to his words, ignoring or apologizing for his inactions/actions. Conservatives and republicans criticism, is dismissed as crazy right-wing hate mongering (granted, much of it is.), or disgruntled and baseless complaints of a party out of power. The powers this president has claimed; to kill at will and detain indefinitely, with no verifiable reason, oversight or input from courts or congress is patently unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and immeasurably dangerous.  People need to understand that their right to dissent is under threat. We watch the news and it’s depictions of the horrible totalitarian/police state conditions in foreign lands and shake our heads in disdain, secure in the knowledge that “THAT” could never happen here, completely oblivious to the fact that IT IS HAPPENING HERE RIGHT NOW.  There is a “Constitution-Free Zone”, right now today in this “Land of The Free”, that the majority of Americans live in. Courts repeatedly uphold its lawfulness.  how long before that zone expands to include the rest of this “Greatest Nation On Earth”?  Apropos here is some wisdom from a wise man. “Conventional wisdom would have one believe that it is insane to resist this, the mightiest of empires, but what history really shows is that today’s empire is tomorrow’s ashes; that nothing lasts forever, and that to not resist is to acquiesce in your own oppression. The greatest form of sanity that anyone can exercise is to resist that force that is trying to repress, oppress, and fight down the human spirit.”  –Mumia Abu Jamal


By Dr. Wilmer J Leon @ Black Agenda Report:

In an interview in 2007 Senator Obama (D-IL) said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation… I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.” In 2013 Americans are facing a president with a different mindset.

A recently leaked White Paper is providing insight into the legal justifications for the Obama administration’s “targeted killing” program. The paper asserts that “high-level” government officials can “…use lethal force in a foreign country…against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force…actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.” This legal framework also explains how lethal force can be used even if the “high-level” government officials do not have “…clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

In September 2011 the administration used drone strikes to kill alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Al-Awlaki’s 16-year old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was also killed by a drone strike. All three were U.S. citizens and none of them had been indicted by the U.S. government for any crimes. According to The Guardian, “…the drone program now is run out of the White House, where (John) Brennan, the president’s most trusted counter-terror adviser, helps Obama pick the targets.” 

The rational behind the administration’s “assassination by drone” program sounds eerily reminiscent to former V.P. Dick Cheney’s “one-percent doctrine.” Cheney believed the so-called “war on terror” empowered the Bush administration to invade sovereign countries and violate American’s civil liberties without the need for evidence or extensive analysis. The facts did not matter. According to Cheney, “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It’s not about our analysis … It’s about our response.”

The Obama administrations rational for targeted killings of American citizens contradict some of the basic framework of American democracy.Due process, habeas corpus, checks and balances, and bills of attainder are civil liberty protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

Due process is such an important protection that it is referenced in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government. For the President or other “high-level” government officials to act as judge, jury, and executioner irrespective of “…clear evidence…” of any immediate wrongdoing is the clearest example of arbitrarily denying life and liberty that one can imagine.

Habeas corpus requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge in order to determine if an individual’s detention is warranted. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states, The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” The language refers to arrests, not assassination, but theoretically, summarily executing American citizens before they can even be detained is a contradiction of the highest order.

The concept of checks and balances is an important part of the Constitution. Each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful. Under no circumstance should members of the executive branch be allowed to condemn American citizens to death, even in times of “war” without the review of an impartial judge. This also violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, “No Bill of Attainder … shall be passed.” A Bill of Attainder is an act of a legislature or executive declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.

The paper also concludes that the use of drone strikes for targeted killings would not be justified if it violated the fundamental law-of-war principles “…if anticipated civilian causalities (collateral damage) would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.” The administration has presented and defended drone strikes as an “antiseptic” use of technology. CIA nominee, John Brennan defended drone strikes as a more humane form of warfare. He said that “extraordinary care” is taken to ensure they conform to the “law of war principles” but stopped short of saying they are in compliance.

According to the Center for Research on Globalization, “At the end of January 2013, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism was able to identify by name 213 people killed by drones in Pakistan who were reported to be middle-or senior-ranking militants. A further 331 civilians have also now been named, 87 of them children. But this is a small proportion of the minimum 2,629 people who appear to have so far died in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan. The Bureau’s work suggests 475 of them were likely to have been civilians.” The administration has championed the use of drones as making Americans safer by killing terrorists. Killing innocent people in foreign countries creates more terrorists.

President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) containing sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provisions and signed into law a four-year extension of post-Sept. 11 powers (PATRIOT ACT) to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.  The rational behind the Obama administrations approach to civil liberties and warfare sounds eerily like a Dick Cheney moment.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “Inside the Issues With Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com. http://www.twitter.com/drwleon

Somali-American Mohamed Osman Mohamud Convicted Of Terrorism In Oregon Christmas Tree Bomb Plot; FBI Provided Encouragement, Guidance, Money & Materials Needed For Attack

In Uncategorized on February 6, 2013 at 4:48 pm

Oldspeak:No one was hurt, and authorities say the public was never in real danger“. “detonate fake bombs”. “Provided by the “government agency here”.  When you see these words in a story about a “foiled” terrorist operation, understand that it is not a real terrorist attack. It is usually one instigated by agents of the government posing as terrorists, who’ve targeted an isolated, distressed, poor, young, impressionable, usually Muslim man who they’ve “coached” to “lead” the “attack”.  This time the man’s (well boys, as the FBI began tracking him at 15 years old) name was Mohamed Osman Mohamud. Peruse the related stories and you’ll see the script remains the same. Long term surveillance. Heavy FBI involvement in planning, financing and execution of the plot.  Rather than steering potential terrorists away from committing crime, law enforcement is encouraging it, and participating in it , creating a crime to ‘solve it’. Here’s the thing about real terrorists: They don’t use fake bombs. If they are leading an operation, it’s reasonable to assume they’ll be 3 times sure the bomb will go off when they press a button. They’re intimately involved in every aspect of the operation. They’ll make an effort to check the backgrounds and associations of those they conspire with.   This boy, like the many others before him, has been used by U.S. government agencies to continue to instill perpetual fear in the populace of “the enemy” in this case “Islamic Terrorists”, and justify the perpetual prosecution of a phantom “War On Terror”.  Left undiscussed in the coverage of this story, is the disturbing normality of ever-increasing prosecution/surveillance/criminalization of youth. We live in a society where 15 year olds are perceived as threats. And the only way these threats are to be dealt with is with prosecution, conviction, lifetime incarceration or execution. “Radicalization” is apparently an incurable infection. Little thought is given to improving the conditions, the structural, cultural and social inequality that make radicalization likely. Most resources are devoted to enforcement, incarceration and or assassination. This “War Is Peace” policy continues ironically under our Nobel Peace Prize winning Commander-In-Chief, President Obama.

Related Stories

New York Federal Reserve ‘Bomb’ Plotter Ensnared In FBI Sting: FBI Provided Encouragement, Guidance, Money & Materials Needed For Attack

Al-Qaida “Underwear Bomber” Was Working For The C.I.A. : The Yemen Bomb Plot & Other Hobgoblins

The Informants: How The FBI’s Massive Informant Network Actually Created Most Terrorist Plots “Foiled” In U.S. Since 9/11

Fake Terror Plots Using Paid Informants: The Tactics Of FBI ‘Entrapment’ Questioned

The Spectacle Of Terrorism And Its Vested Interests

By Teresa Carson @ Reuters:
A Somali-American man was found guilty on Thursday of trying to blow up a Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Oregon using a fake bomb supplied to him by undercover agents posing as Islamist militants, the public defender’s office said.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen and former Oregon State University student, faces a possible life prison term on his conviction on a single charge of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. Sentencing is set for May 14.

Mohamud was arrested shortly after attempting to use his cell phone to remotely detonate an artificial car bomb planted near a Portland square crowded with thousands of people attending the ceremony the day after Thanksgiving in 2010.

No one was hurt, and authorities say the public was never in real danger.

During a three-week trial in U.S. District Court in Portland, defense attorneys argued that overzealous law enforcement officers posing as al Qaeda militants invented a crime and entrapped their client.

But the jury agreed with the prosecution’s argument that Mohamud, 19 years old at the time of the crime, was already radicalized and could have backed out of the bomb plot at any point.

On the morning of the planned bombing, Mohamud reportedly told a friend that it was “the greatest morning of my life.” Hours later, he dialed a cell phone that he thought would trigger the bomb and kill thousands of people.

“Mr. Mohamud made a series of choices over a period of several years – choices that were leading him down a path that would have ended in violence,” Greg Fowler, the FBI’s special agent in charge of the Portland division, said in a statement.

“His actions showed little regard for the rights and responsibilities that come with being an American or respect for the lives that he was prepared to take,” he added.

LONELY WITH LITTLE MONEY

The case, closely watched by many in the nation’s Muslim American community, was one of several sting operations in recent years in which individuals were tracked by undercover FBI agents and later tried to detonate fake bombs in various locations.

“We are disappointed with the verdict,” federal public defender Steven Wax said, adding that he planned to appeal. “There are a number of issues that will be raised.”

Defense lawyers had tried to paint a picture of Mohamud, who spent months with the undercover agents, as a young man who was particularly vulnerable to entrapment, which legal experts had earlier said was always a tough case to prove.

At trial, one of the undercover agents testified that he and a fellow agent were aware that Mohamud was lonely, had little money and that his family was in distress. He said Mohamud wept during their first meeting and that he heard his partner tell Mohamud on many occasions, “I love you.”

The agent also acknowledged that he and his partner had coached Mohamud on what he should say in a videotaped “goodbye” message they filmed of him weeks before the planned attack.

In the video, shown to the jury by prosecutors, Mohamud is seen solemnly saying to the camera: “A dark day is coming your way … your people will not remain safe.”

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for The Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the case could alienate the Muslim community, but was quick to say that “nobody wants to see any possibility of any sort of violence by a lone wolf.”

“I think convictions in these kinds of cases are almost forgone conclusions based on the government’s actions. They are the same in each case,” he said.

Somali-American convicted of terrorism in Oregon Christmas tree bomb plot; was 17 at time

By NIGEL DUARA @ The Associated Press:

Three hours before they handed down a sentence that could put an Oregon man in prison for life, deliberating jurors sent a note to a trial judge with a question.

Did the man whose fate they were deciding need to have envisioned the specific crime for which he was accused? Or did he merely need to be inclined toward some kind of terroristic act?

Their question more broadly reflects the central debate at the heart of the trial of Mohamed Mohamud, a 21-year-old Somali-American found guilty on Thursday of attempting to bomb a Portland Christmas tree-lighting in November 2010.

Prosecutors were met by a claim of entrapment by Mohamud’s defense team, and needed to convince jurors that he was predisposed to terrorism by the time an FBI informant began discussing radical jihad with him over emails.

The judge, Garr King, told jurors Thursday that Mohamud only had to be likely to commit the offense or one like it, and he did not specifically have to be thinking about a bomb at the specific time and place at which he and two undercover FBI agents decided to plant one.

The bomb was a fake, supplied by the agents posing as jihadis.

Jurors were given starkly different portraits of the man who was 17 when the FBI began to focus on him. In the prosecution’s description, Mohamud was a powder keg in search of a spark, an angry teenager with the right combination of anti-Western sentiment and a plausible cover story as an Oregon college student.

In the defense’s telling, he was confused, broke and suffering under the weight of parental expectations. Gullible and eager to please, he fell into a plot entirely of the FBI’s making, following along with men he imagined were like family, Mohamud’s attorneys said.

Mohamud sat still as King read the verdict in a slow, deliberate cadence. His parents, who attended every day of the trial, were absent, leaving the seating reserved for family entirely empty throughout the announcement of the verdict.

After the verdict, the FBI asserted again that Mohamud would indeed have found a way to commit a violent act had agents not intervened.

“Mr. Mohamud made a series of choices over a period of several years — choices that were leading him down a path that would have ended in violence,” said Greg Fowler, who leads the FBI office in Portland. “His actions showed little regard for the rights and responsibilities that come with being an American or respect for the lives that he was prepared to take.”

Mohamud’s attorney, Steve Sady, later said an appeal was being planned after the scheduled May 14 sentencing.

“We are disappointed with the verdict,” Sady said. “We, obviously, thought he was entrapped.”

Prosecutors argued that Mohamud was predisposed to terrorism as early as 15 years old. Mohamud traded emails with an al-Qaida lieutenant later killed in a drone strike. He also told undercover agents he would pose as a college student while preparing for violent jihad.

Mohamud was never called to testify. Instead, the jurors saw thousands of exhibits and heard hours of testimony from friends, parents, undercover FBI agents and experts in counterterrorism, teenage brain development and the psychology of the Muslim world.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight told the jury earlier this week that the decision would be easy. Mohamud pressed a keypad button on a black Nokia cellphone and intended to kill people. Whatever else they might think about the methods of undercover agents or the government’s decision to investigate a teenager, the underlying decision was Mohamud’s and the motivation was hatred of the West.

Sady had argued that Mohamud wasn’t radicalized by online recruiters or friends with jihadist leanings, but rather by a Justice Department hungry for convictions that ignored every caution sign along the way. Sady said undercover agents manipulated Mohamud’s faith and plied him with praise and the promise of a life leading other jihadis.

“This case has been a difficult case for the city of Portland. It’s been a particularly difficult case for Mohamed Mohamud’s community, for his family, for the Somali community,” said Amanda Marshall, U.S. attorney for Oregon. “We are hopeful that this will bring closure and healing to all of us here in Portland.”

Somali-American On Trial Over Christmas Tree Bomb Plot

By Stephanie Rice @ Agence France-Presse:

A Somali-American accused of trying to blow up a crowded US Christmas-tree lighting ceremony went on trial, more than two years after being arrested in an FBI sting operation.

Arguing in court just blocks from the site of the tree lighting in the US state of Oregon, lawyers presented rival pictures of Mohamed Mohamud, either as a troubled youth tricked by undercover agents or a hardened Islamist terrorist.

The 21-year-old’s defense lawyer claimed Mohamud never would have attempted to detonate the “bomb” — a harmless fake supplied by FBI agents — on November 26, 2010 if agents posing as terrorists hadn’t coerced the confused then-teenager into it.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation “created a crime that never would have happened without them,” attorney Stephen Sady told the 16-strong jury which will decide Mohamud’s fate, in the long-awaited trial.

“He wasn’t a perfect human being,” added. “But he wasn’t someone who was sitting around thinking about blowing up his hometown.”

The “entrapment” argument is crucial to Mohamud’s defense and likely his only shot at avoiding life in prison on the charge of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Under US law, authorities cannot trick someone into committing a crime. That means the government must prove Mohamud was predisposed to violence before undercover agents ever approached him.

The government counters that Mohamud wasn’t tricked and willingly chose to press the button on a cell phone that he believed would kill thousands gathered in downtown Pioneer Square.

“He said he would push the button because it would make him happy to have bodies torn everywhere,” Assistant US Attorney Pamala Holsinger told jurors.

“By the time he met FBI agents he had already decided that violence against civilians, in or out of the US, was justified,” she said.

Mohamud watched the proceedings from a table with his attorneys, taking notes on a legal pad. At one point he seemed to become emotional, and an attorney put a comforting hand on his shoulder.

About 10 family members sat on the other side of the packed courtroom, occasionally coming and going from the courtroom with what appeared to be a prayer rug.

The high-profile trial, expected to last at least several weeks, has all the makings of a cloak-and-dagger spy drama.

Undercover agents testifying in disguise will give a rare glimpse into the world of FBI sting operations. Jurors will tour the van the government packed with phony explosives and gave to Mohamud, telling him it was the real thing.

The terror case is highly unusual for this West Coast city known for its laid back, quirky culture — the informal city motto is “Keep Portland weird” – and not on anyone’s list of top terror targets.

It has raised questions not only about where an attack can happen, but also about how authorities pursue potential threats while protecting the civil liberties of US citizens.

Undercover FBI Agents Recount Christmas Bomb Plot

By Stephanie Rice @ Agence France-Presse:

FBI tactics in investigating a Somali-American accused of plotting to blow up a US Christmas tree lighting ceremony took center stage, as undercover agents began testifying.

Giving evidence in disguise and visible only to jurors, one agent maintained that Mohamed Mohamud was prone to violence from the beginning and spoke of plans to “wage war” on the United States.

To test Mohamud’s resolve, the agent — who was posing as an Al-Qaeda recruiter named “Youssef” — said that in his first meeting with Mohamud, he gave the then-teenager five examples of how he could be “a good Muslim.”

According to Youssef — whose real name was withheld in court — Mohamud stopped short of the most extreme option, martyrdom, but chose violence over praying five times a day or raising money for extremists.

“He said he would like to become operational,” Youssef testified.

Mohamud, now 21, faces life in prison for allegedly attempting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction — a harmless fake supplied by FBI agents — near the crowded 2010 pre-Christmas ceremony in Portland, Oregon.

But in many ways, the FBI is also on trial as the defense argues agents coerced a gullible kid into a violent act.

Under US law, it is illegal for authorities to trick someone into a crime.

The defense has argued that sophisticated FBI agents such as Youssef used powerful psychological tools to brainwash a confused teenager, giving him specific instructions on how to plan an attack he wasn’t capable of on his own.

But Youssef said he was simply trying to assess whether Mohamud was truly capable of acting on his violent rhetoric.

In his early meetings with Mohamud, Youssef said he was not sure the young man would go forward with his plans. “I thought it was all talk,” he added.

Ultimately, Youssef and another agent gave Mohamud a fake bomb and a cell-phone detonator, telling him it would kill thousands gathered at a Christmas tree lighting in downtown Portland once he pressed the button.

After Mohamud tried twice to detonate the bomb on November 26, 2010, the FBI arrested him.

The undercover agents’ initial interactions with Mohamud are crucial to the case.

The young man’s fate hinges on whether jurors believe he was already predisposed to violence when agents posing as terrorists approached him and offered help in plotting an attack.

Also testifying in court, the FBI official in charge of the sting operation said authorities were alarmed by Mohamud’s previous interactions with Al-Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan.

US-born Khan was later reportedly killed in the same CIA drone strike that felled radical Yemeni-US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, previously linked to a US Army major who killed 13 people at a Texas military base, and to a Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on December 25, 2009.

In 2009, Mohamud wrote four articles for a magazine run by Khan called Jihad Recollections, ranging from workout tips for violen extremists to why Europe would be an ideal place for an attack.

At one point, Special Agent Miltiadis Trousas said, Mohamud wanted to include a photo of the burning towers on 9/11 with a story. Khan said it was too violent.

Trousas noted that Mohamud also sought advice from Khan on relationships and faith.

In one instance, according to Trousas, Mohamud asked Khan: “If my family are not following the Islamic law, how am I supposed to obey them?”

Khan advised Mohamud not to live with his family if he could not “persuade them,” Trousas said.

The trial continues this week with more testimony from undercover agents.

 

 

You Can Go To Jail For Walking Between Subway Cars. No Jail For HSBC After Laundering 800 Million For Drug Cartels & Al-Qaeda

In Uncategorized on December 14, 2012 at 4:13 pm

https://i2.wp.com/i.ytimg.com/vi/B7EGhw1-Q54/0.jpgOldspeak: “The banking corporation HSBC has escaped indictment for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and groups linked to al-Qaeda. Despite evidence of wrongdoing, the U.S. Department of Justice has allowed the bank to avoid prosecution and pay a $1.9 billion fine. No top HSBC officials will face charges, either.” –Amy GoodmanWhen your most elite, most powerful members of the society adopt a strategy of plundering, then they will develop a morality that doesn’t simply permit plundering, but valorizes it. And when that happens, the moral structures of the society will inevitably deteriorate. In the upper classes that leads to polite looting. In the under classes that leads to street looting. –William K. Black  This is the nature of Inverted Totalitarian Kleptocracy. Blatant, rampant and repeated, spectacular violations of the law by those in the “inner party” go unpunished.  Brutal, unyielding, heavy handed, clinical enforcement of the law for those in the “outer party” and “proles” for the most ridiculously dubious “laws”.  HSBC joins an impressive list, Bank Of America, Citigroup, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, all found to be laundering money for illegal foreign organizations. Why is HSBC laundering money for known affiliates of terrorists? How is this organization not guilty of “material support for terrorism”, for which untold Muslims and anti-government activists are disappeared regularly? And no one goes to jail. As long as corporations fiance elected officials, write regulations and the legislation that establishes regulations, madness like this will continue. And get worse.

By Matt Taibbi @ Rolling Stone:

If you’ve ever been arrested on a drug charge, if you’ve ever spent even a day in jail for having a stem of marijuana in your pocket or “drug paraphernalia” in your gym bag, Assistant Attorney General and longtime Bill Clinton pal Lanny Breuer has a message for you: Bite me.

Breuer this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who’s ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a “record” financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank.

The banks’ laundering transactions were so brazen that the NSA probably could have spotted them from space. Breuer admitted that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC’s Mexican branches and “deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows.”

This bears repeating: in order to more efficiently move as much illegal money as possible into the “legitimate” banking institution HSBC, drug dealers specifically designed boxes to fit through the bank’s teller windows. Tony Montana’s henchmen marching dufflebags of cash into the fictional “American City Bank” in Miami was actually more subtle than what the cartels were doing when they washed their cash through one of Britain’s most storied financial institutions.

Though this was not stated explicitly, the government’s rationale in not pursuing criminal prosecutions against the bank was apparently rooted in concerns that putting executives from a “systemically important institution” in jail for drug laundering would threaten the stability of the financial system. The New York Times put it this way:

Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the reasoning here is beyond flawed. When you decide not to prosecute bankers for billion-dollar crimes connected to drug-dealing and terrorism (some of HSBC’s Saudi and Bangladeshi clients had terrorist ties, according to a Senate investigation), it doesn’t protect the banking system, it does exactly the opposite. It terrifies investors and depositors everywhere, leaving them with the clear impression that even the most “reputable” banks may in fact be captured institutions whose senior executives are in the employ of (this can’t be repeated often enough) murderersand terrorists. Even more shocking, the Justice Department’s response to learning about all of this was to do exactly the same thing that the HSBC executives did in the first place to get themselves in trouble – they took money to look the other way.

And not only did they sell out to drug dealers, they sold out cheap. You’ll hear bragging this week by the Obama administration that they wrested a record penalty from HSBC, but it’s a joke. Some of the penalties involved will literally make you laugh out loud. This is from Breuer’s announcement:

As a result of the government’s investigation, HSBC has . . . “clawed back” deferred compensation bonuses given to some of its most senior U.S. anti-money laundering and compliance officers, and agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior officials during the five-year period of the deferred prosecution agreement.

Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement? Are you fucking kidding me? That’s the punishment? The government’s negotiators couldn’t hold firm on forcing HSBC officials to completely wait to receive their ill-gotten bonuses? They had to settle on making them “partially” wait? Every honest prosecutor in America has to be puking his guts out at such bargaining tactics. What was the Justice Department’s opening offer – asking executives to restrict their Caribbean vacation time to nine weeks a year?

So you might ask, what’s the appropriate financial penalty for a bank in HSBC’s position? Exactly how much money should one extract from a firm that has been shamelessly profiting from business with criminals for years and years? Remember, we’re talking about a company that has admitted to a smorgasbord of serious banking crimes. If you’re the prosecutor, you’ve got this bank by the balls. So how much money should you take?

How about all of it? How about every last dollar the bank has made since it started its illegal activity? How about you dive into every bank account of every single executive involved in this mess and take every last bonus dollar they’ve ever earned? Then take their houses, their cars, the paintings they bought at Sotheby’s auctions, the clothes in their closets, the loose change in the jars on their kitchen counters, every last freaking thing. Take it all and don’t think twice. And then throw them in jail.

Sound harsh? It does, doesn’t it? The only problem is, that’s exactly what the government does just about every day to ordinary people involved in ordinary drug cases.

It’d be interesting, for instance, to ask the residents of Tenaha, Texas what they think about the HSBC settlement. That’s the town where local police routinely pulled over (mostly black) motorists and, whenever they found cash, offered motorists a choice: They could either allow police to seize the money, or face drug and money laundering charges.

Or we could ask Anthony Smelley, the Indiana resident who won $50,000 in a car accident settlement and was carrying about $17K of that in cash in his car when he got pulled over. Cops searched his car and had drug dogs sniff around: The dogs alerted twice. No drugs were found, but police took the money anyway. Even after Smelley produced documentation proving where he got the money from, Putnam County officials tried to keep the money on the grounds that he could have used the cash to buy drugs in the future.

Seriously, that happened. It happens all the time, and even Lanny Breuer’s own Justice Deparment gets into the act. In 2010 alone, U.S. Attorneys’ offices deposited nearly $1.8 billion into government accounts as a result of forfeiture cases, most of them drug cases. You can see the Justice Department’s own statistics right here:

 Justice Department’s own statistics
Justice Department

If you get pulled over in America with cash and the government even thinks it’s drug money, that cash is going to be buying your local sheriff or police chief a new Ford Expedition tomorrow afternoon.

And that’s just the icing on the cake. The real prize you get for interacting with a law enforcement officer, if you happen to be connected in any way with drugs, is a preposterous, outsized criminal penalty. Right here in New York, one out of every seven cases that ends up in court is a marijuana case.

Just the other day, while Breuer was announcing his slap on the wrist for the world’s most prolific drug-launderers, I was in arraignment court in Brooklyn watching how they deal with actual people. A public defender explained the absurdity of drug arrests in this city. New York actually has fairly liberal laws about pot – police aren’t supposed to bust you if you possess the drug in private. So how do police work around that to make 50,377 pot-related arrests in a single year, just in this city? Tthat was 2010; the 2009 number was 46,492.)

“What they do is, they stop you on the street and tell you to empty your pockets,” the public defender explained. “Then the instant a pipe or a seed is out of the pocket – boom, it’s ‘public use.’ And you get arrested.”

People spend nights in jail, or worse. In New York, even if they let you off with a misdemeanor and time served, you have to pay $200 and have your DNA extracted – a process that you have to pay for (it costs 50 bucks). But even beyond that, you won’t have search very far for stories of draconian, idiotic sentences for nonviolent drug crimes.

Just ask Cameron Douglas, the son of Michael Douglas, who got five years in jail for simple possession. His jailers kept him in solitary for 23 hours a day for 11 months and denied him visits with family and friends. Although your typical non-violent drug inmate isn’t the white child of a celebrity, he’s usually a minority user who gets far stiffer sentences than rich white kids would for committing the same crimes – we all remember the crack-versus-coke controversy in which federal and state sentencing guidelines left (predominantly minority) crack users serving sentences up to 100 times harsher than those meted out to the predominantly white users of powdered coke.

The institutional bias in the crack sentencing guidelines was a racist outrage, but this HSBC settlement blows even that away. By eschewing criminal prosecutions of major drug launderers on the grounds (the patently absurd grounds, incidentally) that their prosecution might imperil the world financial system, the government has now formalized the double standard.

They’re now saying that if you’re not an important cog in the global financial system, you can’t get away with anything, not even simple possession. You will be jailed and whatever cash they find on you they’ll seize on the spot, and convert into new cruisers or toys for your local SWAT team, which will be deployed to kick in the doors of houses where more such inessential economic cogs as you live. If you don’t have a systemically important job, in other words, the government’s position is that your assets may be used to finance your own political disenfranchisement.

On the other hand, if you are an important person, and you work for a big international bank, you won’t be prosecuted even if you launder nine billion dollars. Even if you actively collude with the people at the very top of the international narcotics trade, your punishment will be far smaller than that of the person at the very bottom of the world drug pyramid. You will be treated with more deference and sympathy than a junkie passing out on a subway car in Manhattan (using two seats of a subway car is a common prosecutable offense in this city). An international drug trafficker is a criminal and usually a murderer; the drug addict walking the street is one of his victims. But thanks to Breuer, we’re now in the business, officially, of jailing the victims and enabling the criminals.

This is the disgrace to end all disgraces. It doesn’t even make any sense. There is no reason why the Justice Department couldn’t have snatched up everybody at HSBC involved with the trafficking, prosecuted them criminally, and worked with banking regulators to make sure that the bank survived the transition to new management. As it is, HSBC has had to replace virtually all of its senior management. The guilty parties were apparently not so important to the stability of the world economy that they all had to be left at their desks.

So there is absolutely no reason they couldn’t all face criminal penalties. That they are not being prosecuted is cowardice and pure corruption, nothing else. And by approving this settlement, Breuer removed the government’s moral authority to prosecute anyone for any other drug offense. Not that most people didn’t already know that the drug war is a joke, but this makes it official.

By Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzalez @ Democracy Now:

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, let’s go on to HSBC. The banking giant has escaped indictment for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and groups linked to al-Qaeda. The bank reportedly supplied a billion dollars to a firm whose founder had ties to al-Qaeda and shipped billions in cash from Mexico to the United States despite warnings the money was coming from drug cartels. Earlier this year, a Senate investigation concluded that HSBC provided a, quote, “gateway for terrorists to gain access to U.S. dollars and the U.S. financial system.”

Despite evidence of wrongdoing, the Justice Department has allowed the bank to avoid prosecution and pay a $1.9 billion fine. No top HSBC officials will face charges. While it’s reportedly the largest penalty ever paid by a bank, the deal has come under wide criticism. Officials reportedly agreed to seek the fine over concerns that criminal charges would have hurt the global financial system.

Loretta Lynch is U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

LORETTA LYNCH: We are here today to announce the filing of criminal charges against HSBC Bank, both its U.S. entity, HSBC U.S., and the parent HSBC group, for its sustained and systemic failure to guard against the corruption of our financial system by drug traffickers and other criminals and for evading U.S. sanctions law. HSBC, as you know, is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, with affiliates and personnel spanning the globe. Yet during the relevant time periods, they failed to comply with the legal requirements incumbent on all U.S. financial institutions to have in place compliance mechanisms and safeguards to guard against being used for money laundering.

HSBC has admitted its guilt to the four-count information filed today, which sets forth two violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, a violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. As part of its resolution of these charges, HSBC has agreed to forfeit $1.256 billion, the largest forfeiture amount ever by a financial institution for a compliance failure.

AMY GOODMAN: That was U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch.

Meanwhile, HSBC Group Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver said in a statement, quote, “We accept responsibility for our past mistakes. We have said we are profoundly sorry for them.” He added the bank had, quote, “taken extensive and concerted steps to put in place the highest standards for the future.”

News of HSBC’s fine comes as three low-level traders were arrested in London as part of an international investigation into 16 international banks accused of rigging a key global interest rate used in contracts worth trillions of dollars. The London Interbank Offered Rate, known as Libor, is the average interest rate at which banks can borrow from each other. Some analysts say it defines the cost of money. The benchmark rate sets the borrowing costs of everything from mortgages to student loans to credit card accounts.

Well, for more on the latest bank scandals, we’re joined by Matt Taibbi, contributing editor for Rolling Stone magazine. His latest book is Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History.

Now, how did Forbes put it, Matt? “What’s a bank got to do to get into some real trouble around here?”

MATT TAIBBI: Exactly, exactly. And what’s amazing about that is that’s Forbes saying that. I mean, universally, the reaction, even in—among the financial press, which is normally very bank-friendly and gives all these guys the benefit of the doubt, the reaction is, is “What do you have to do to get a criminal indictment?” What HSBC has now admitted to is, more or less, the worst behavior that a bank can possibly be guilty of. You know, they violated the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Bank Secrecy Act. And we’re talking about massive amounts of money. It was $9 billion that they failed to supervise properly. These crimes were so obvious that apparently the cartels in Mexico specifically designed boxes to put cash in so that they would fit through the windows of HSBC teller windows. So, it was so out in the open, these crimes, and there’s going to be no criminal prosecution whatsoever, which is incredible.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And emails found where bank officials were instructing officials in Iran and in some other countries at how best to hide their efforts to move money into their system?

MATT TAIBBI: Exactly, yeah, and that’s true at HSBC, and apparently we have a very similar scandal involving another British bank, Standard Chartered, which also paid an enormous fine recently for laundering money for—through Iran. This, again, comes on the heels of the Libor scandal, which has already caught up two major British banks—the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays. So, you have essentially all of the major British banks now are inveigled in these enormous scandals. We have a couple of arrests, you know, today involving low-level people in the Libor thing, but it doesn’t look like any major players are going to be indicted criminally for any of this.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this whole argument that the bank is too big to indict because of the threat to the world financial system, most people don’t know that HSBC stands for Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. It’s a British bank that goes back to the early days of British colonialism in Asia.

MATT TAIBBI: Sure.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And is it too big to be indicted?

MATT TAIBBI: The amazing thing about that rationale is that it’s exactly the opposite of the truth. The message that this sends to everybody, when banks commit crimes and nobody is punished for it, is that you can do it again. You know, if there’s no criminal penalty for committing even the most obvious kinds of crimes, that tells everybody, investors all over the world, that the banking system is inherently unsafe. And so, the message is, this is not a move to preserve the banking system at all. In fact, it’s incredibly destructive. It undermines the entire world confidence in the banking system. It’s an incredible decision that, again, is met with surprise even with—by people in the financial community.

AMY GOODMAN: On Tuesday, Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the lead regulator for HSBC in the U.S., defended the settlement.

THOMAS CURRY: These actions send a strong message to the bank and to the financial services industry to make compliance with the law a priority to safeguard their institutions from being misused in ways that threaten American lives.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. It seems like a lot of people who are in prison right now—low-level thieves, criminals, drug launderers, people who have been accused of working with al-Qaeda—perhaps could appeal their convictions now and get out of jail.

MATT TAIBBI: Right. Right, yeah, exactly. I was in court yesterday, in criminal court in Brooklyn. I saw somebody come out of—come into court who had just been overnight in jail for walking from one subway car to another in front of a policeman. You can do real time in jail in America for all kinds of ridiculous offenses, for taking up two subway seats in New York City, if you fall asleep in the subway. People go to jail for that all the time in this country, for having a marijuana stem in your pocket. There are 50,000 marijuana possession cases in New York City alone every year. And here we have a bank that laundered $800 million of drug money, and they can’t find a way to put anybody in jail for that. That sends an incredible message not just to the financial sector but to everybody. It’s an obvious, clear double standard, where one set of people gets to break the rules as much as they want and another set of people can’t break any rules at all without going to jail. And I just don’t see how they don’t see this problem.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Matt, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer outlined some of HSBC’s alleged drug cartel ties.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL LANNY BREUER: From 2006 to 2010, the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico, the Norte del Valle cartel in Colombia and other drug traffickers laundered at least $881 million in illegal narcotics trafficking proceeds through HSBC Bank USA. These traffickers didn’t have to try very hard. They would sometimes deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in a single day into a single account, using boxes, as Loretta said, designed to fit the precise dimensions of the tellers’ windows in HSBC’s Mexico branches.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Matt, this is like Monopoly, the board game, all over again, you know? Get out of jail free, you know.

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Instead of $50, you pay $1.9 billion, but you’re still getting out of jail free.

MATT TAIBBI: And this fits in the—in with the pattern of the entire financial crisis. $1.9 billion sounds like a lot of money, and it definitely is. It’s a record settlement. No bank has ever paid this much money before. But it’s about two months’ worth of profits for HSBC. It’s not going to cripple this bank. It’s not even going to hurt them that badly for this year. It fits in line with the Goldman Sachs settlement in the Abacas case, which was hailed at the time as a record settlement. It was $575 million. But that was about 1/20th of what they got just through the AIG bailout. So, this is not a lot of money for these people. It sounds like a lot of money to the layperson, but for the crimes they committed, getting away with just money—and it’s not even their own money, it’s not their personal money, it’s the shareholders’ money—it’s incredible. It really—it literally is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, of course, the way that big banks these days can borrow money from the U.S. Fed for no interest—

MATT TAIBBI: For free.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: For free.

MATT TAIBBI: Free.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Basically, they can just take money from the government and pay the government back.

AMY GOODMAN: What does the Justice Department, what does the Obama administration, gain by not actually holding HSBC accountable?

MATT TAIBBI: You know, I think—I’ve asked myself that question numerous times. I really believe—and I think a lot of people believe this—that the Obama administration sincerely accepts the rationale that to aggressively prosecute crimes committed by this small group of too-big-to-fail banks would undermine confidence in the global financial system and that they therefore have to give them a pass on all sorts of things, because we are teetering on the edge of a problem, and if any one of them were to fall out, it would cause a domino effect of losses and catastrophes like the Lehman Brothers business. And I think they’re genuinely afraid of that. And so, that’s the only legitimate explanation that you can possibly assign to this situation, because, as we know, Wall Street abandoned the Obama administration this year when it came to funding in the election. They heavily supported Mitt Romney and didn’t give Obama much money at all.

AT&T Chief Says DOJ Blocked Merger With T-Mobile Will Cost Its Consumers More

In Uncategorized on May 5, 2012 at 4:22 pm

Oldspeak: “Since that deal got killed, our data prices have gone up 30%,” he said. He also blamed the blocked T-Mobile USA deal, in part, for AT&T’s decision earlier this year to impose a limit on the amount of data available to a given customer. However, he said such a move probably would have been necessary regardless of the decision, and that he regretted not imposing the cap sooner.” Austerity measures, affect you in more ways than you think. How bout that. The merger doesn’t happen, so they jack up prices to increase their perceived lost potential profits. And the argument for corporate consolidation and less choice perfectly crystallizes some of the fundamental flaws with oligarchical capitalism.  In the minds of terminal ill Capitalists, More for me, less for you = More for me, more for you. Your basic 2+2-=5 logic. This insatiable lust for more, and the idea that it is good, unbridled greed;  it is unsustainable and certainly catastrophic for our planet, and our ‘civilization’. Every thing in nature grows, and then stops growing. We’ve created a civilization in which that basic physical rule does not apply and we are reaping the consequences: ever rapid resource depletion and contamination, mass extinctions, environmental destruction and contamination, drought, starvation, overcrowding, homelessness, poverty… All because a few hundred Oligarchs want ever ‘more’.  And have conditioned us to believe that we want ever ‘more’ even though the vast majority of us never will attain Oligarchical levels of it. That simple and insidious idea; ‘more’ has led us to the brink of collapse on multiple levels, yet we’re still being told that everything is ok. Why? We need Barefoot Economics. NOW.”

Related Story:

AT&T To Buy T-Mobile: Great For Them, Bad For You

What Does Proposed AT&T And T-Mobile Merger Mean?

By Ethan Smith @ The Wall Street Journal:

The government’s decision to block AT&T Inc.’s T -0.76% takeover of Deutsche Telekom AG’s DTEGY -0.18% T-Mobile USA unit will result in higher prices to consumers, AT&T Chairman and Chief Executive Randall Stephenson contended during a public interview Wednesday.

Speaking at the Milken Institute’s annual global conference, Mr. Stephenson said that the U.S. wireless-telecommunications market can’t sustain the current number of competitors because there isn’t enough wireless spectrum for all of them.

Based on current patterns, wireless data usage will increase 75% a year for at least five years, Mr. Stephenson said.

“We’re running out of the airwaves that this traffic rides on,” he added. “There is a shortage of this spectrum.”

With or without a deal like the one his company unsuccessfully pursued, he said, competitors will be forced to drop out if they can’t find enough wireless capacity to offer more modern data services to growing numbers of customers.

“The more competitors you have, the less efficient the allocation of spectrum will be,” he said. “It’s got to change. I don’t think the market’s going to accommodate the number of competitors there are in the landscape.”

Many countries in Asia, Europe and Latin America have many fewer companies offering wireless voice and data services, letting them allocate bandwidth more efficiently, Mr. Stephenson contended.

“Since that deal got killed, our data prices have gone up 30%,” he said. He also blamed the blocked T-Mobile USA deal, in part, for AT&T’s decision earlier this year to impose a limit on the amount of data available to a given customer. However, he said such a move probably would have been necessary regardless of the decision, and that he regretted not imposing the cap sooner.

“I wish we had moved quicker to change the pricing model to make sure the people who were using the bandwidth were paying for the bandwidth,” Mr. Stephenson said.

Informant Posing As Drug Cartel Member “Foiled” Iranian Assassination Plot

In Uncategorized on October 13, 2011 at 11:28 am

Manssor Arbabsiar

Oldspeak:”One day after posting a expose about the FBI’s vast and shady network of informants helping to create and “foil” terrorist plots, I see this. Hmm. At first glance it looks like you score one for the good guys, but deeper examination of the facts of the case makes you ask yourself how does this make sense? Tim Padgett @ Time said it best -“If Iranian government operatives really did try to contract a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., as the Obama Administration alleges today, then they weren’t just being diabolical. They were being fairly stupid. Had Arbabsiar actually been dealing with the Zetas – and not a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration informant who posed as a Zeta operative – they probably would have conveyed that reality to him fairly quickly. And they would have likely dismissed the $1.5 million that Arbabsiar allegedly offered the D.E.A. informant. Ditto for the opium the Iranians allegedly threw into the deal. The Zetas, after all, are part of a Mexican drug-trafficking, kidnapping and extortion industry that rakes in as much as $40 billion a year. To risk that kind of cash flow by carrying out a five-alarm international hit for a million and a half bucks seems a non-starter. It also seems an organization like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, for whom the Justice Department says Arbabsiar may have been working, should know better. Arbabsiar, who lives near Mexico in Corpus Christi, Texas, certainly should have been wiser. All of those considerations may make it harder for many to believe that the alleged Iranian terror plot that the Obama Administration foiled was all that adept or serious.” Could this be another false flag operation used as pretext for attacking Iran?” “War Is Peace”

Related Stories:

Hiring Narcos to Murder the Saudi Ambassador? If It’s True, Tehran Is Pretty Dumb

 

U.S.-Iran Tensions Grow as Indictment Accuses Iranian Agents of Assassination Plot

 

Iran Is Accused by U.S. of Sponsoring Plot to Assassinate Saudi Ambassador

 

By Liz Goodwin @ Yahoo News:

A government informant posing as a member of the feared Zetas drug cartel in Mexico helped foil an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States on American soil, the Justice Department says.

The informant “posed as an associate of a sophisticated and violent international drug trafficking cartel” who was willing to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador, according to the complaint. Government sources told ABC News that the cartel in question was the Zetas. The Zetas have been behind some of the worst violence in Mexico’s grisly drug war, including mass beheadings, arson in a Monterrey casino that trapped and killed 52 people and the murder of a U.S. immigration agent.

The complaint says the informant was busted on a narcotrafficking charge in the past and then was flipped by the Drug Enforcement Agency as a source who has helped them make arrests in other drug cases.

Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old naturalized American citizen who also had an Iranian passport, is accused of approaching the source thinking he was a member of the drug cartel on the direction of the Iranian military.

He wired the source $100,000 to a U.S. bank account as a down payment for assassinating the Saudi Arabian ambassador, and said he would pay the rest of the $1.5 million fee later. The government says Arbabsiar said he didn’t care if as many as 100 civilians were killed along with the ambassador in the explosion. He traveled to Mexico several times to meet with the informant.

Tim Padgett at Time Magazine argues that Arbabsiar, who used to live in Corpus Christi, Texas, would have had to be pretty stupid to think the Zetas would bomb an American target for only $1.5 million. “The Zetas, after all, are part of a Mexican drug-trafficking, kidnapping and extortion industry that rakes in as much as $40 billion a year,” he writes. “To risk that kind of cash flow by carrying out a five-alarm international hit for a million and a half bucks seems a non-starter. It also seems an organization like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, for whom the Justice Department says Arbabsiar may have been working, should know better. Arbabsiar, who lives near Mexico in Corpus Christi, Texas, certainly should have been wiser.”

Middle East expert Juan Cole speculates on his blog that Arbabsiar’s patron, allegedly a member of the Revolutionary Guards, may have had a side business in drug trafficking. Cole thinks the plot seemed so amateurish that it makes it more sense that it was the work of an Iranian drug cartel angry over the Saudi war on drugs than Iranian government operatives. The Iranian cartel may have been hoping to find new markets for Iran’s opium and heroin supply that typically go through Afghanistan.