Bipartisan Support For Taylor Standing Trial Conveyed to Johnson-Sirleaf

A bipartisan group of Congressional leaders has requested that the Bush administration make it clear to Liberia's president-elect, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, that Taylor's extradition to stand trial for crimes against humanity of of uttmost importance to the United States.

The group was led by Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif, and long-time leader on this issue. He was joined by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and others in the demand that the new government in Liberia, already reeling from riots, inhertited graft, abject poverty and countless other problems, make getting Taylor out of the picture an absolute priority. And rightly so. As long as he remains undeterred, and has access to his cash and international criminal and terrorist ties, not only will Liberia not rest easy, but West Africa and the interests of U.S. and Europe remain in danger. Given Nigeria's unwillingness to turn him over to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and, even more worrisome, to exercise no control over his activities or financial transactions, getting him to trial is even more important.

The letter to Secretary of State Rice said in part that, "On the occasion of Liberian President-Elect Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf's visit to Washington, we write to respectfully request that you make the status of former Liberian President Charles Taylor a paramount concern of the United States in your conversations with the President-Elect...The treatment of Taylor is a matter of security and justice for the West African people."

"Mr. Taylor must be held accountable. Achieving this end will require decisive and quick action by President-Elect Johnson-Sirleaf, backed by the United States. While some will argue that the 'timing is not right,' we believe that the present situation provides a unique window of opportunity. Delay only works to Mr. Taylor's advantage. The time for action is now."

While it is heartening to see such a broad swath of Congress, from conservatives to liberals, agree on this issue, it remains to be seen whether the Bush administration is willing to press for resolution. In the past, mixed messges from different parts of the diplomatic and intelligence communities, including mixed messages at from very senior people in different offices, have given Nigerian president Obasanjo the impression, and perhaps it is correct, that the Bush administration is still indifferent to the fate of Taylor. In contrast Congress, so often unwilling or unable to exercise oversight on matters of foreign affairs, has done a remarkable job of sending a consistent message and pursuing the issue of Taylor's extradition. If the executive branch had shown half the willingness to press the issue as Mssrs. Royce, Wolf, Obama and others, the issue would have been resolved long ago.

Someone Tries to Keep an Eye on Saudi Charities and Financiers

Rep. Sue Kelly, (R-NY) and head of the Congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force, continues to be one of the few in Congress willing to try to exercise oversight over the Bush administration's often-ineffective efforts to get Sauid Arabia to crack down on charitable contributions that can be used to fund radical Islamic activities. In a recent letter to President Bush, she raises several salient issues on the Saudi response (or lack thereof) to ongoing problems in this relationship. Just as importantly, unlike many in Congress and elsewhere, she does not simply accept what the Saudi government tells her, repeatedly pointing out the discrepancies between word and deed.

"We should make clear that we know Saudi officials are making some assertions about their activities to U.S. officials and members of Congress that are directly contradicted by activities the Saudi government itself is publicizing at home and abroad," Kelly wrote in her unusually blunt missive to the president. "We must get beyond the current state of affairs." The full letter is available here.

Kelly outlines specifics of problems with Saudi Arabia, including the lack of accountability for those blacklisted for funding al Qaeda, including Wa'el Julaidan, Mr. Qadi and others. As far as can be determined, they have not had their assets frozen, as required by the UN resolution that is supposed to be binding. Both continue active lives in the worlds of finance and charities.

"The apparent lack of action regarding designated terror financiers, coupled with the activities of the charities referenced above and reports of insurgents in Iraq financed by private donors in the kingdom, suggest the need for an environment of accountability for financiers of terror in Saudi Arabia," Kelly wrote. Hard to put it any better than that.

Tim Spicer, Aegis and Iraq--What a Surprise!

Well, it looks like Aegis, the company run by British mercenary and profiteer Tim Spicer, who managed to get a $293 million U.S. government contract in Iraq, has run into a spot of trouble. According to the Washington Post, the U.S. military has opened an investigation into whether Aegis employees, responsible for providing close personal protection for diplomats in Iraq, opened fire on civilian vehicles. Videos of the shootings first surfaced on a website maintained by former employees of Aegis, and contained a message from Spicer reminding his collegues that their livelihood depends on them maintaining their contract.

Spicer is not an unknown commodity and has a long history of involvement with rogue armed groups. Here is what I have written about him before, along with links to other stories, but here is a brief recap:

One of Spicer's main business partners in the 1990s was Anthony Buckingham, and oil entrepreur with interests in Africa. Together they founded Executive Outcomes, a forerunner of Sandline (see above). One of Buckingham's interests in Africa was Branch Energy in Kenya. On the board of directors of Branch Energy was Sanjivan Ruprah, international arms dealer and frequent partner of Viktor Bout. As Ray O'Hanlon wrote in the the Sept. 29, 2004 issue of Irish Echo, "there is only one degree of separation between Ruprah and Tim Spicer, Buckingham being the connecting dot. This is not to suggest a direct link between Ruprah and Spicer, but suffice it to say, all these individuals have been swimming in the same opaque sea."

Spicer formed Aegis to operate in Iraq. Somehow, despite his open affiliation with a failed, illegal military expedition for which he was to be $36 million (Papua New Guinea) and various mercenary operations in Africa that offered military services in exchange for the right to diamond fields (Sandline, Branch Energy), he not only passed muster, he got a three-year contract at almost $100 million, cost-plus, a year to do his work.

His reviews have not been good. The GAO has consistently found his company to be doing a poor job, but that appears not to matter. It was renewed recently for another year.

If there were ever a perfect case to demonstrate a bit of serious Congressional oversight, it seems to me this would be a fine place to start. Whether one agrees with the invasion of Iraq or not, it is clear that there must be oversight of how U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent. I don't know whether Spicer and/or Aegis did anything wrong in this case. But providing a living for people like Tim Spicer is not, in my book, one of the best ways to spend our money.

An A on Terror Finance?

The one bright spot in the final report of the 9-11 Commission is combatting terror finance. While awarding the effort an A-, the Commission wrote:

"The U.S. has won the support of key countries in tackling terrorism financethough there is still much to do in the Gulf States and in South Asia. The government has made significant strides in using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool. However, the State Department and Treasury Department are engaged in unhelpful turf battles, and the overall effort lacks leadership."

I would beg to differ with the high grade, although, if it is grading on effort, it might be accurate. The truth is, accross the civilian and military terrain, I have not talked to anyone who really believes that we now have a handle on terror finance issues, especially the Zarqawi network, or that we have any real metrics for measuring true progress. It is true that there is broad lip service now paid across the Gulf region to the need to deal with terror finance issues, but charities continue to opereate, designated individuals continue to sit on the boards of the charities, offshore structures continue to function unimpeded. While there appear to have been some cash flow problems for the traditional al Qaeda structure, it does not seem those problems represented anything more than a temporary glitch.

There is also growing evidence of the willingness of al Qaeda and its affiliates to occassionally hook up with organized criminal groups, sometimes blending the two into one operation, as is the case with Dawood Ibrahim, the main subject of the fine U.S. News cover story from last week. So, the money may be generated from different sources and the organizations may not need the amount they once did to keep the Taliban afloat. The change is the funding patterns of Islamic extremist groups does not mean their financial flows are disrupted. It means, rather, that they are adaptable, flexible organizations that know how to move far ahead of where law enforcement and intelligence usually are.

I think some in the intelligence community dealing with this issue is finally getting out of traditional mindset of looking at banking regulation, SARs etc. as the primary tool to deal with terror finances, and are beginning to become more flexible, or at least more creative, in thinking about how it works. And that is progress, but after 4 years, I am not sure I would give that an A-, unless one were grading on a curve, which may be badly needed, given the other grades handed out.

The most telling line in the Commission report is that there is still a lack of leadership on this issue in the administration. The FBI has the lead, but has proven, through its history on this issue, that the lead role would have been better left with Treasury. The Bureau is exercising little leadership, but often likes to take over cases that develop, effectively keeping other agencies from exercising leadership either. The turf fights are noted, and that has been discussed here before. The question is, now what? Will there be a sustained effort, with senior leadership involved, to bring a serious focus to this? Or will there be a continued lack of engagement at the highest levels, meaning a lack of resources for the people in the trenches capably going about their jobs without fully committed leadership?

The UN Finally Takes Action Against Bout Associates and Companies

Well, after months of delay (mostly on the U.S. part in getting the information to them), the United Nations finally designated two business associates of Viktor Bout and 30 of his companies, obligating member states to freeze all assests related to the people and firms and banning their international travel. The full list can be found here.

OFAC had designated the same people (Richard Chichakli, a U.S. citizen; and Valeriy Naydo, Ukranian), along with two others, and the same companies, in April. That made it illegal for any U.S. company to do any business with any company related to Bout--a legal barrier that has been routinely ignored by some in the Pentagon and some of their civilian contractors.

However, getting the exact same information to the UN so the designations would have a global effect took an inordinate amount of time because the whole thing got bogged down in the inter-agency review swamp for months--months used by Bout to create new companies, buy new aircraft and continue operating. While the Treasury Department gave the list to the State Department immediately after taking its own action, State was unable to move the papers along for almost six months. The UN acted with relative swiftness in getting the list issued once they got the request from the United States. Only two people, Sergei Bout (Viktor's brother and partner, and another Russian citizen) were kept off the global list due to a "technical hold" by the Russians, pending more information from the United States.

While the freezing measures, both in the United States and the UN, were based on Bout's support for Charles Taylor in Liberia, he is also accused by the U.S. government of making $50 million off of arms sales to the Taliban, weapons that were later used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In addition, Bout and his web of companies, according to U.S., European and U.N. investigators, has supplied an array of of other desiganted terrorist groups with weapons, including the FARC in Colombia.

The strength of the UN action is that it provides a legal basis for other nations to act against Bout and his companies. The UAE, for example, has not taken action against several Bout companies as requested by the United States because the companies were only designated by the Treasury Department. That is no longer the case. It remains to be seen if there is the political will to really take action against some of the designated companies like Irbiss that continue to fly openly out of Sarjah airport.

The weakness, of course, is that many of the designated companies are already shelved, and new companies have been established. The speed with which Bout is able to register and re-register aircraft under different company names is stunning. It is difficult to keep up with. The individuals may be harder to replace. Chichakli left the United States after his designation and continues to threaten to sue the U.S. Treasury and everyone else. Now he can add the UN to the list. However, truely blocking the assests and travel of designated individuals is something that has been far beyond the ken of most countries, even for those accused of terrorist activities. While the UN action is a small step in the right direction, it seems unlikely to really hurt Bout, Chichakli and the rest of those intent on staying in business and able to move through the cracks of the global enforcement system.

The More Things Change...

A soon to be released GAO report, leaked to the New York Times and others, finds that, four years after 9-11 the U.S. government "lacks and intergrated strategy" to help other countries cut off the flow of funds to terrorists. What is most disturbing is that all the old turf wars, somewhat eased in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, have resurfaced with all their destructive energy. The Treasury, Justice and State departments are fighting over who gets to do what where, and in the process spend a great deal of time battling each other rather than going after the money flows of al Qaeda, Hamas and others.

One exchange described in the report has a Treasury Department official complaining that the process for deterring terrorist financing abroad is "broken" and that the State Department "creates obstacles rather than coordinates efforts." A State Department official responded that the real problem is Treasury's unwillingness to accept State's lead role in the program.

While the report focuses on the U.S. efforts to train other countries in ways to combat terror finance, it confirms a larger problem within the administration, as described to me by people in government and those who served there for many years. There is simply little interest on following up on issues raised on terror finance, and almost no leadership provided by those who sit in the principals' meeting in funding, attacking or seriously focusing on the issue. The CIA, according to one source, still has noone dedicated to tracing terror finance issues, never mind a special unit.

The wind has gone out of the sails, as one former official recently told me (and the source is a Bush fan). So strong is the feeling that momentum has gone that at least one senior official from earlier days has declined an invitation to rejoin the government at a very senior level, where the job would have been to focus on these issues.

There has been some progress. Matt Levitt finally getting to fill the Treasury terror finance intelligence spot will most likely bring renewed vigor to that group. But let's not forget that the administration balked at a request by Republican House members to beef up the funding for FINCen and other groups in this country that work here and also train abroad.

This lack of interest in the administration is dangerously coupled with a steep drop in the quality and quantity of the work of the UN committee tasked with following the finances of al Qaeda and the Taliban. The panel has been downgraded, the staff cut and the quality of the work is considerably diminished, as is the importance it is given within the UN Secretary General's office.

All of this helps explain why the vast majority of the financiers of al Qaeda, Hamas and others continue to operate. There may be some more obstacles in their way, but most have successfully be that, by laying low for a while, the attention focused on them would wander and soon it would be business as usual. This is not were we should be four year after 9-11.

The Taliban and al Qaeda regroup in Afghanistan, Cross-train with Iraqi Insurgents

It is now clear that the phenomenon much feared by the intelligence community and military in fighting global terrorism is now well-advanced--the cross-pollination of techniques and strategies of different groups, able to share lethal technological innovations across national boundries to comrades battling elsewhere. The Washington Post on Monday carried a lengthy story on how tactics from Iraqi jihadists are showing up in Afghanistan. It is not just the suicide bombing themselves, it is the technology of building the bombs, the use of more sophisticated, harder to detect detonators and the accumulated knowledge that now moves back and forth across much of the jihadi world.

U.S. military and intelligence officials have long believed that this spread of knowledge, communication and networking in the jihad world was one of the biggest dangers of the Iraq invasion and the resulting, fragmented insurgency. It created a crucible where jihadists could meet, train, study and fight together, greatly strengthening the network's trust and knowledge of each other and facilitating communication after one's stint in Iraq finished.

It is now clear they were right to be concerned. Even more worrisome is the almost-inevitable spread of these techniques and startegies around the globe where the jihadists are active--from the Philippines to Africa to Southeast Asia. Being in combat with someone, and having a shared set of experiences greatly strengthens the bonds of individuals and groups engaged in clandestine activities. Afghanistan, Bosnia, Sudan and other places have offered this to a lesser degree than Iraq in the past. But in Iraq there is the added advantage of fighting American soldiers, not other proxy armies.

As I have mentioned in the past, the Post article also highlights the seeming financial resurgence of the Taliban and the sharing of resources--military and financial--with al Qaeda foreign fighters there. The tempo of Taliban activities in Afghanistan has greatly increased, and Taliban units now occassionally include Arab fighters in their ranks. The equipment and technology they now have is new and very good. This could be a sign of involvement in the booming opium trade, of renewed external financial assistance or a mixture of both.

There is little I read or hear to suggest either the Salafist combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan are increasing their public appeal. But, as in every insurgent war, if the goverment forces are not in control of an area the people will go with the flow and work with whoever wields the most power. Survival is paramount, not ideology, among the civilians trying to eke out a living. Not winning is dangerously akin to losing.

Terror Finances, Foreign Fighters and Claims of Victory

Senior counter-terrorism officials seem to be falling into the unhealthy habit of badly underestimating the new shapes al Qaeda is taking, and the resources it has access to to continue to grow. The Treasury Department's Stuart Levey recently said al Qaeda was hurting for money, something European and other U.S. officials dispute. His comments can be found here. There are also public statements about the waning influence of foreign fighters in Iraq and containing al Qaeda and weakening it.

Al Qaeda and the Salafist Islamic structure intent on establishing a radical Muslim world order by force, political infiltration, revolution, indoctrination, theological reasonings have spread in ways we do not understand yet. There are divisions, personality clashes and tactical and strategic disagreements petty and profound. All of that does not mean the overall goals are changed or that there is not a high degree of unity against the Great Satan.

Like the fighting the drug cartels in Colombia, the successes against a highly adaptable enemy lead to unexpected consequences, some of them not helpful. The Salafist structures are more difuse, more independent, more financially compartmentalized and much less leader-centric. While that may mean the specific influence of Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri and others is less, it does not mean the overall effort is weakened. In fact, in may mean the opposite.

There are also shifts that are hard to quantify in terms of importance. In his letter to Zarqawi, Zarwahiri said: "We need a payment while new (financial supply) lines are being opened. So, if you are capable of sending a payment of approximately one hundred thousand (dollars), we'll be very grateful to you." Sounds like a temporary cash flow problem, rather than a finanancial crisis.

The newly armed and engaged Taliban and al Qaeda fighers in Afghanistan an Pakistan show the problem was overcome in fairly short order. It also shows that Zarqawi may have enough surplus cash to help out other people. Not unlike bin Laden in his hey day, able to send money to Abu Sayyaf, JI and others.

In fact, as I and other have written about, the financial chain of charities, offshore companies and private donations from the leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood, active across Europe and elswhere, continues to operate unabated. The money that the Brotherhood, operating through a series of shell structures across Europe, is almost unlimited. Any claim of financial success that does not entail the demise of at least part of that structure is, I think, wishful thinking.

Intel people monitoring the Afghan side of things say the Taliban and "Arab" fighters of al Qaeda are carrying out more and more joint operations, something they had not been doing for a some time. This is being interpreted as a sign of financial and logistical robustness, rather than hurting.

On the foreign fighters, my intel friends tell me the Arab fighters have diminished in number for reasons they do not yet understand. But I would be wary of reading too much into what may be a temporary phase while Zarqawi's people regroup and morph into something new.

The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the counter drug effort, and still does. The cartels, mini-cartels, insurgent groups and others have always found new, innovative ways of getting the cocaine and heroin to market, whether here or in Europe. The offshore structures move and mutate, but remain viable. Short term developments were often mistaken for long-term trends. It might be time to sit back and avoid the constant urge to describe, in qualitative ways, things we don't understand.

The Troubling Liberian Elections

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf seems poised to be Liberia's next president, and the first woman elected president in sub-Saharan Africa. That is no small feat. However, looming over her nascent presidency is the ghost of Charles Taylor, with whom she worked for several years before moving into international organizations. Leaders of the U.S. Congress, as well as the United Nations Security Council, have taken new steps to make it easier for Johnson-Sirleaf to turn Taylor over the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Last week the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1638, giving the UN forces in Liberia to arrest Taylor if he returns to his homeland. Rep. Ed Royce, R-California, barely let Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf assume the winners mantle before writing to her, asking her to make Taylor's extradition and hand over to the Special Court her highet priority.

"I would be considerably more optimistic about Liberia's future, however, if Mr. Taylor faced the 17-counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for which he has been indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The United States and many other governments strongly support the Court and its mandate, and I urge you to do likewise," Royce wrote.

"I firmly believe that as long as Mr. Taylor continues to enjoy safe harbor --while remaining active in Liberian politics from a distance-- the livelihoods and democratic rights of millions of West Africans, and the post-war re-construction of Liberia and Sierra Leone, will remain at risk. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has resisted numerous calls, including by the United States Congress, to transfer Mr. Taylor to the custody of the Court. Nevertheless, I request that you call for the Nigerian government to deliver Mr. Taylor immediately to the Court, so that justice can be done and Liberia can enjoy better prospects for prosperity."

But there are disturbing reports from Nigeria and Liberia that Johnson-Sirleaf has, in fact, made some arrangement with Taylor not to ask for his extradition. Several elements seem to support the thesis. Some of Taylor's main money people, including Benoni Uri, are in her camp, she recently visited Nigeria and her second round campaign was much better financed than originally anticipated. This is not proof of anything, but it has many in Liberia wondering what happened. Johnson-Sirleaf won in areas that her opponent, George Weah, swept in the first round of voting. Suddenly, ex-combatants, loyal still to Taylor, were flocking to her campaign rather than Weah's. It could be good campaigning, but it is a little strange how all of that came together.

Johnson-Sirleaf has a unique chance in Liberian history to move her country away from the poverty and violence, coupled with official brutality and plundering, that have marked the nation's national life for decades. She has the experience and education to make a fundamental differerence. But that won't happen if she is moving to accomodate Taylor in any way. He has shown, in his years of destroying his own country, that he is ruthless, unreliable and willing and able to exploit any hint of weakness by his enemies. It would be a good start to declare that Taylor's future is closely tied to the future of Liberia, and doing justice with him is vitally important to setting the stage for the country to move ahead.

How Does he Do It?

Well, my friends on the ground in Sarjah and elsewhere tell me that Viktor Bout's aircraft are back in action yet again in Iraq and Afghanistan, working for Americans. I know, sometimes I sound like a broken record. I feel like a broken record. But is is apparently the U.S. government and its civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan that are really broken. Bout's company names change, but the aircraft remain the same. Some old Bout craft have reportedly moved back to Sarjah after having been taken out for a while. The Bout companies seem to be using Moldovan registrations again. Does this all have a vaguely familiar ring to it? Can it be that hard to track?

Of course, now that dealing with Bout and any of his affiliate companies, either through contractors or subcontractors is illegal for any U.S. company or government entity, his clients could be prosecuted, although Viktor himself remains beyond reach, in the comfortable protective swaddling of the Russian intelligence agencies. Anyone who does business with him or allows it to happen can and should face criminal charges. Of course, this administration has not been known to hold people accountable for their actions, and going after Bout's friends and protectors is probably not very high on many people's list. And yes, there were times when, with limited options available, using Bout may have been a necessary evil. But no longer. There are American companies lining up to fly the routes his companie fly. He is often not the lowest bidder, and he seldom carries insurance on the planes his companies fly. Yet you and I pay for those flights almost every day.

A brief recap may be in order. Bout flew for the most radical Muslim extremists in Bosnia. He betrayed the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to begin flying weapons and ammunition for the Taliban. He flew tons of weapons to the drug-trafficking, kidnapping thugs of the FARC in Colombia, has flown for Moammar Gadaffi and the Abu Sayyaf killers in the Philippines. He flew weapons to several sides of most of the most atrocious wars in sub-Saharan Africa, including the genocidiers in Rwanda. He routinely sold out clients for those who were willing to pay more, and crashed piles of airplanes, killing scores of people. Oh, and he , occassionally helped out the U.S. military and intelligence community, and has run ammunition, alcohol and equipment for Coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not much of a record to put up against mass of evil he has perpetrated the the aid and comfort (in the forms of AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft weapons) to not onoy the enemies of the United States, but to a participant in numerous crimes against humanity.

It seems to me a small tip of the hat to humanity and common decency to cut of U.S. money to him. Apparently, there are many in the Pentagon and elsewhere who view that as too high a price to pay.

An Islamic Charity Continues to Function with Designated Individuals on Board

A brief review of public records of the Geneva branch of the International Islamic Charitable Organization (IICO) show the charity has at least two Specially Designated terrorist financiers on its board, yet continues to function. As of Oct. 26, 2005, the IICO's lists both Youssef al Qardawi and Galeb Himmat as directors of its Geneva branch, according to a search of corporate documents on the group by the NEFA Foundation. Qardawi is not a run-of-the-mill terrorist financier. He has been a fountain of public statements against the United States, Israel and in favor of Islamic radicalism for many years.

The functioning of IICO shows how ineffective and toothless the international sanctions regime has become. Those on the U.N. list continue to operate freely, presiding over businesses and charities that give them continued access to millions of dollars. The organizations that hire them are not penalized and, in the end, neither are the individuals.

For example, Idriss Nasreddin, also a designated individual tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshore banks, continues to operate an enormous business empire, often in partnership with another designated individual, Yousef Nada. Nasreddin now lives in Nigeria, having violated the international travel ban by leaving Italy for presumably more hospitable climes. If Nigeria can take a butcher like Charles Taylor, why not a white collar terrorist financier like Nasreddin?

The IICO is interesting for several other reasons. Several of the directors, including Himmat and al Qardawi were also major players in the Nassau-based Bank al Taqwa, the main Muslim Brotherhood bank, also designated as a terrorist-financing institution. The bank was also run by Nada and Nassredin.

And, NEFA investigation found, the IICO also operated as part of the Safa Group in Northern Virginia. It is among the organization listed in Attatchment C of David Kane's affidavit, as one of the many organizations that operated out of 555 Grove Street, Herndon, Virginia. There is another Northern Virginia tie--IICO's vice president is Saleh ibn Abdul Rahman al-Hussayen, who, in the mid-1990s, was an officer of the SAAR Foundation, the primary entity of the Safa Group under investigation. al Hussayen is the mysterious senior Saudi religious official who, on Sept. 10, 2001, checked into the same hotel in Herndon where three of the 9-11 hijackers were staying, then feigned a seizure when interviewed by the FBI a few days later. My former collegue Sue Schmidt did a great piece on this, on the front page of the Washington Post on Oct. 2, 2003. It is, indeed, a small world.

More Concerns over Nigerian Flight Crash and Liberians in Ivory Coast

There is growing evidence that the Oct. 22 airplane crash in Nigeria that killed all 117 people on board--including a U.S. Special Forces officer, top counter-terrorism officials of the Obasanjo government and senior regional security officers--was sabotage, not accident. Senior Nigerian officials are now saying publicly that there was an explosion in the air, before the aircraft, which had recently passed inspection, crashed to the earth. The lastest official statements can be found here.

At least one previously unknown group from the troubled Niger Delta region has taken credit for the downing, but the claim has been disavowed by other groups, and there seems to be little indication that any are legitimate. There are also conflicting reports over whether the black box has been found. Numerous international teams will be arriving in coming days to comb over the remains of the wreakage, but it appears the site was not properly secured in the days immediately after the crash, so it is unclear if anything of interest has been disturbed, removed or destroyed. But the blowing up of a commercial airliner would mark a dangerous new phase of the unrest in Nigeria, whether it be by international criminal syndicates, Islamic terrorist operating in the country, disgruntled armed groups in the oil-rich Delta region or any combination of the above.

There is also disturbing news from Ivory Coast, West Africa's other center of political and economic gravity. A new Human Rights Watch report charges that Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo's government is recruiting and paying child-soldiers from neighboring Liberia as he prepares another offensive against rebel groups in the north. Gbagbo has already declined to step down, despite the fact that his electoral term ended, and plans to remain as head of state until new, UN-monitored elections are able to be held. here is a good story on the overall situation there.

The use of child soldiers remains one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated in the region. Everyone, from Charles Taylor to the RUF to the LURD have systematically set out to abduct children, turn them through terror and psychological pressure into killers, and keep them from their homes. It is a crime when a rebel or non-state group engages in this type of recruitment, effectively destroying the childhoods of thousands of people. It is even worse when a state, claiming to be bound by international laws, engages in such destructive behavior.

The children remain easy prey, even after they demobilize. Most are separated from their families, remain pariahs in the towns they terrorized and have been offered little hope for the future. When recruitment drives for "missions," as the bloody conflicts are often called, the children often sign up for the promise of a few dollars and a chance to wield a gun, and power again. Those ordering, abetting or tacitly supporting the efforts to recruit children should face the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity.