Saudi Censorship of Western Books...in the West

[roo_ster]

Our friends, the Saudis...

Pulp Non-Fiction   [Stanley Kurtz]

Heres a story with huge implications for freedom of speech (all negative), and its apparently gone almost entirely unreported in the mainstream press. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required), under threat of a law suit, Cambridge University Press has just agreed to pulp all unsold copies of the 2006 book, Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World. According to the Chronicle, this is the fourth such book on terrorism funding to be pursued by a libel action. The Chronicle quotes Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy, whose own book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financedand How to Stop It is one of the four books.

   

In an interview on Monday, Ms. Ehrenfeld characterized as "despicable" Cambridge's decision to settle this week, a move the press has defended as necessary and just. Ms. Ehrenfeld, who is a friend of Mr. Burr's [one of the authors of Alms for Jihad], said that, as she understands it, press officials "caved immediately."

    "They didn't even consider the evidence that the authors had given them," she said. "They received a threatening letter, and they immediately caved in and said, Do whatever it takes. Pay them whatever they want. Ban the book, destroy the book, we don't want this lawsuit."

In a blog post entitled, "Attention Authors: Be afraid, very afraid....especially if you write about the Saudis and their support of terrorism," Emory University professor, Deborah Lipstadt elaborates. In addition to the links within Lipstadts post, you can find related stories at the website of Ehrenfelds American Center for Democracy. Given MSMs silence, this looks like one for the blogosphere.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Attention Authors: Be afraid, very afraid.... especially if you write about the Saudis and their support of terrorism

Whenever David Irving's libel case against me comes up someone inevitably asks: How could he sue you in the UK? I explain that my book was bought and published by Penguin UK and therefore he could drag me into a UK court.

Turns out that now the reach of UK libel laws has been greatly extended. It's a frightening development. In an earlier post I wrote about Rachel Ehrenfeld and how she was sued for libel by the Saudi Khalid bin Mafouz for writing that he had supported terrorism.

But here's what makes Ehrenfeld's story quite different from mine: her book was NOT published in the UK. Some people in the UK [I wonder if it was the Saudis or their lawyers???] bought a copy over the Internet.

Bin Mafouz pounced and Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay him damages. Now the American courts have come to her defense. [Scroll down at this link to find the New York Law Journal report on the Ehrenfeld case.]

Now the Saudis have silenced another book. This one is by J. Millard Burr, a former relief coordinator for Operation Lifeline Sudan, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Robert O. Collins, professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

They have written a number of books on Darfur and Sudan. Their most recent book, Alms for Jihad was published by Cambridge University Press. [Since their book was published in the UK, their case is closer to mine than Ehrenfeld's.]

The authors explore how, in the words of Michael Rubin, writing in the New York Sun:

    The Saudi royal family played a pernicious role, founding and promoting charities to spread militant Sunni Islam, not only as an inoculation against resurgent Shi'ism from revolutionary Iran, but also to radicalize the Muslims in Europe and America.

The British lawyers for Khalid bin Mahfouz and his son Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz wrote Cambridge University Press saying they intended to sue the Press and the authors for defamation against their clients.

Cambridge University Press contacted the authors,and they provided detailed material in support of their claims made in Alms for Jihad.

Nonetheless, Cambridge University Press decided not to contest the argument and next week they will apologize in court.

As Rachel Ehrenfeld has just written to me in an email: "Get a copy of Alms of Jihad before its banned..."

[To satisfy the different leanings of readers of this blog I have provided links to Amazon, B&N, and Powells. I would have provided a link to Cambridge University Press but the book seems to have been buried deep within the Cambridge University Press website How's that for rewriting of history?]

Bin Mahfouz apparently has amassed a number of judgements by default, in other words the case was not tried on its merits. Everyone just caves, pays a fine, and gets out of Dodge as fast as they can.

Cambridge Press had pretty deep pockets but it too folded. If I were a reporter writing about this I would see what connections it has with the Saudis... That would be interesting to know.

And now I return to the main point: Why isn't this pattern of silencing by the Saudis of authors who are critical of them been the topic of an article in the mainstream press?

There are important legal precedences here, especially in the Ehrenfeld case, and a disturbing pattern of silencing of criticism by the Saudis.

Where are the free speech advocates now???

[Manedwolf]

It's only free speech if it doesn't insult the Saudis. You're not allowed to say anything bad about them.    If you point out how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, or that the nation has lots of hate madrassas and a 12th century justice system, you'll be ostracized.

Good reason for Internet free publishing. Even if you can't really make a buck on it, at least the word gets out. Can't stop it once it spreads.

[Standing Wolf]

1. Why did we save Europe from itself not once, but twice in the twentieth century at the cost of a great many American lives?

2. Why didn't we nuke Mecca on September 12, 2001?

[The Rabbi]

Saudi support for Wahhabi Islam abroad (and by extension terrorism) has been so well documented it is a wonder there is any controversy at all.
But the royal family is not a free agent in this either.  They are afraid of the mullahs, who threaten to overthrow the regime.  So they essentially pay bribe money to keep their position.
The US has an interest in stability in the area, not just for oil reasons.  An Islamic regime like Iran or Afghanistan in control of such wealth would be a huge threat.
Bad situation.

[roo_ster]

TR:

What you wrote is what so many folks just refuse to understand about reality: sometimes there are no good solutions to a problem (in the human time frame), just solutions that are more or less bad.

The Saudis are a fine example.  They are oil-soaked, dishonest, backstabbing, motherless sons of whores.  They are about as good as you will ever find on that peninsula, unfortunately.  If the regime topples in the short-term, it won't be replaced by a sun-drenched Swiss Confederation or Singaporean mild authoritarianism.  Heck, hoping for an Arabic Mexican oligarchy is pie-in-the-sky fever dreaming.  Just about every realistic outcome is worse than the status-quo.

That is no reason, however, to not toss the oil sheiks out on the backsides when they try the shenanigans in the OP.

[Sindawe]

1. Why did we save Europe from itself not once, but twice in the twentieth century at the cost of a great many American lives?

Europe is our cultural parents and relations.  When family falls into a mess, we help them out the first time or two they do such.  If after that they don't learn, well.....

2. Why didn't we nuke Mecca on September 12, 2001?

Nuking Mecca, Medina & Rhiad would have been a gross over reaction to the 9/11 attacks.  Personally I would have preferred to see Saudi Arabia occupied and the Holy Cities closed to all until Islam learns to play nice with the other children and police its own nutcases.

But I don't run things.  Pity that....

[Manedwolf]

Personally I would have preferred to see Saudi Arabia occupied and the Holy Cities closed to all until Islam learns to play nice with the other children and police its own nutcases.

But I don't run things.  Pity that....

Put them under Disney management. 

[De Selby]

The Saudis are a corrupt and oppressive regime.  They are the cartoon version of crazed anti-semitic religious nuts that everyone wants to pin on Iran and Syria.

The Rabbi, I see your point...but surely selling them 20 billion dollars in advanced weapons is not something you do when you're just "maintaining the status quo"?

jfruser,

They are about as good as you will ever find on that peninsula, unfortunately.  If the regime topples in the short-term, it won't be replaced by a sun-drenched Swiss Confederation or Singaporean mild authoritarianism.

This sentiment makes no sense for someone who was an Iraq war supporter.  We realize that harsh dictatorships who propagandize against the evil west are a cause of terrorism and extremism-yet you're here advocating support for the absolute worst dictatorship in the region.  The Saudis are more vile in their antisemitism, more generous in their funding for Al Qaeda, and more extreme in their intolerance for basic human rights, than any other royal family in that region of the world.

But they're "the best option"?  I think any other regime would be better.  They make Syria and Iran look like paradises of freedom and moderation-and that is not a compliment to Iran or Syria.  And note that not a single Iranian or Syrian has been involved in the Bin Ladenite crusade to kill little kids and hapless people on their way to work in the morning.  Can you say the same for Saudi Arabia? How does that amount to Saudi being "the best option"?  In terms of terrorism, so far the evidence would suggest that Iran and Syria are far better allies in preventing and attacking extremism than the House of Saud.

There will be no end to Bin Ladenite terrorism until Saudi Arabia is toppled.  It is the main financial and ideological source of that garbage. 

Sindawe,

Nuking Mecca, Medina & Rhiad would have been a gross over reaction to the 9/11 attacks.  Personally I would have preferred to see Saudi Arabia occupied and the Holy Cities closed to all until Islam learns to play nice with the other children and police its own nutcases.

Oh yeah.  That would've been an even bigger success than the occupation of Iraq-those crazy Arabs would probably all just sing the US national anthem in the streets and beg for mercy if this were to happen.

[The Rabbi]

Who was it who said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?
Maintaining good relations with the Saudis helps insure we maintain some measure of influence over them.  They are responsive to US and international pressure to some degree.
A regime dominated by mullahs (ala Iran) would be much worse since we would have no influence whatsoever.

[De Selby]

Who was it who said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?
Maintaining good relations with the Saudis helps insure we maintain some measure of influence over them.  They are responsive to US and international pressure to some degree.
A regime dominated by mullahs (ala Iran) would be much worse since we would have no influence whatsoever.

The problem is that our influence is never used to push for change that would solve the problems of extremism and terrorism.

A regime dominated by Mullahs with no influence that is legitimate does not appear to spawn hordes of terrorists coming to New York to blow themselves up.  This is our experience with both Iran and Syria: we have problems getting them to behave on the international order as we would like, but we do not have Syrians and Iranians flying airplanes into buildings or bombing subways and train stations.

It's a matter of priorities.  Saudi Arabia breeds and funds Al Qaeda terrorism, but is willing to make whatever diplomatic and strategic moves the United States wants.  To support that policy is in my mind to reduce the fight against terrorism to sideshow status in comparison to the quest for a compliant and submissive oil-producing monarchy.

Which is of course itself a part of the problem with any diplomatic or military mission in that part of the world: They all kick and scream that the US doesn't want to help them, doesn't care about terrorism, and just wants friendly governments (no matter how abusive to their own people) in place.

So....does arming and funding Saudi Arabia prove "the arab street" wrong on this point? I think it's crucial that American policy doesn't validate those claims, but unfortunately weapons deals to Saudi on the one hand while screaming about anti-semitism in Iran on the other seems to prove the point.

[The Rabbi]

We dont know (I dont anyway) what our influence has been used to do.  These things by their very nature are sensitive and not usually released to the public.
The Saudis did not send "hordes" of people to crash airliners into buildings here, unless you consider 20 or however many they were to be a horde.
There are however hordes of Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians (and Egyptians) streaming into Iraq ready to martyr themselves to Allah.
There is no good solution, as was mentioned.  But the devil you know is better in some cases than the devil you dont.

[RevDisk]

While this is made to sound like a singular infraction of freedom of speech, which does not exist in the UK, it is not.  UK's libel laws are by any definition insane.  Basically, if anyone sues you (in the UK) under UK libel laws, you must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did not commit libel.  Guilty until proven innocent.  Even if you prove yourself innocent, more than likely you will amass much debt over the course of the lawsuit. 

1. Why did we save Europe from itself not once, but twice in the twentieth century at the cost of a great many American lives?

2. Why didn't we nuke Mecca on September 12, 2001?

1.  Because it was in our interest not to let the Kaiser or Hitler take over Europe.  Because of our actions, we have allies instead of enemies.  They may not always please us, but they are not exactly likely to work against us either. 

2.  Because the US has a strict policy forbidding nuclear first strike, a leftover from the Cold War.  Basically, we cannot nuke anyone anymore unless they attack us with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons first.  We can only retaliate.  This is not a policy we should ever change either.

[De Selby]

There are however hordes of Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians (and Egyptians) streaming into Iraq ready to martyr themselves to Allah.

Interesting you mention this: I believe the latest reports are that something like half of all foreign fighters in Iraq are from one country-Saudi Arabia. 

[The Rabbi]

There are however hordes of Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians (and Egyptians) streaming into Iraq ready to martyr themselves to Allah.

Interesting you mention this: I believe the latest reports are that something like half of all foreign fighters in Iraq are from one country-Saudi Arabia. 

And your point is??

[Antibubba]

And now I return to the main point: Why isn't this pattern of silencing by the Saudis of authors who are critical of them been the topic of an article in the mainstream press?

Because it only involves books.  If they were suing 24 or Entertainment Tonight there would be round-the-clock reports with serious music and impressive Powerpoint graphics dissecting this from every angle.  But this only involves a book--not even one with pictures or salacious gossip.  Who reads that kind of thing anyways?

[De Selby]

There are however hordes of Palestinians, Syrians, and Jordanians (and Egyptians) streaming into Iraq ready to martyr themselves to Allah.

Interesting you mention this: I believe the latest reports are that something like half of all foreign fighters in Iraq are from one country-Saudi Arabia. 

And your point is??

That it's the largest single source of terrorism and extremism in the middle east.  That would suggest that the "keep them because there's nothing better" argument is wrong, since we have seen the alternative in Iran, and it is less of a problem in that department.  It's not like we have no clue what would happen without the corrupt and antisemitic Saudi monarchs.  We do know what happens when dictatorships in this region collapse and give way to Islamist governments-and the fact is, Iran is better on every single measure than Saudi Arabia except for one: compliance with US diplomatic and strategic demands.

It's likely that a Saudi Arabia without the monarchy would be much less extreme, less a breeding ground for Al Qaeda, and less corrupt.  All of those things will contribute to reducing the spread of terrorist ideology.  But instead of promoting change in Saudi Arabia....we're selling the regime billions in sophistocated weaponry. 

For what?  Certainly not its contribution to the fight against extremism and violence.

[Jamisjockey]

Personally I would have preferred to see Saudi Arabia occupied and the Holy Cities closed to all until Islam learns to play nice with the other children and police its own nutcases.

But I don't run things.  Pity that....

Put them under Disney management. 

Is there a more oppressive regime then that?

[Manedwolf]

Personally I would have preferred to see Saudi Arabia occupied and the Holy Cities closed to all until Islam learns to play nice with the other children and police its own nutcases.

But I don't run things.  Pity that....

Put them under Disney management. 

Is there a more oppressive regime then that?

Well, it'd at least break the Wahhabist prohibition on music and celebration. That thing with the pilgrims circling the black cube is so bleak. It needs a laser show on the sides of the thing, big speakers all around, fog machines, balloon releases, paraglider shows...

[roo_ster]

jfruser,

They are about as good as you will ever find on that peninsula, unfortunately.  If the regime topples in the short-term, it won't be replaced by a sun-drenched Swiss Confederation or Singaporean mild authoritarianism.

This sentiment makes no sense for someone who was an Iraq war supporter...

"Politics is the art of the possible."
----Otto Von Bismarck
I have gone over this before, but will quickly do so again.

Iraq was do-able in ways that Iran and SA were less-so.

Iran's population is more than double Iraq's (27.5m vs 65.4m).  Assuming that Iran would also produce insurgent activity, the forces required to deal with it would also likely be double what we see in Iraq.

SA is close to the population of Iraq's at 27.6m, but there are other considerations that would make it a more difficult nut to crack.  Two of those considerations are Mecca & Medina.

Of the remaining terrorist-supporting states, Syria would be hte easiest to knock over, but is is land-locked.  We would need a country amenable to overflights and overland transport.  The likeliest candidate would be Israel.  Allowing us to do so would likely bring intolerable pressure on the Israelis from Fatah & Hamas & the Hezzies.  Also, the corridor usable would be mighty narrow and easy to make travel through it a risky proposition.

Now, as to what made Iraq the best, first target, there are the reasons above: not the most populous, not the center of Sunni Islam, & not land-locked.  First, there was the fact that Saddam was still in a state of open war against us, what with his SAM launches vs our planes.  Second, SH had signed agreements after being whipped in GWI as to his conduct that he repeatedly broke.  Last, the UN (worthless though it is) had authorized force against SH back in GWI, had not recinded them, and had passed a further 16 worthless resolutions calling on SH to fulfill his obligations.  There are othe rreasons, but those are the biggest from a practicality standpoint.

But they're "the best option"?  I think any other regime would be better...

The problem is that our influence is never used to push for change that would solve the problems of extremism and terrorism....

my second post:
"What you wrote is what so many folks just refuse to understand about reality: sometimes there are no good solutions to a problem (in the human time frame), just solutions that are more or less bad."

I do not share your rose-colored view of Iran's mullacracy.  "Any" likely other regime is not going to be better.  If the psycho-mullahs create a theocracy, I bet it would be MUCH worse.  There would be no moderation or attenuation of terrorist support from the top and there is every likelihood that they would make common cause with Iran's psycho-mullahs.  The non-psycho Gulf states would be between the hammer and the anvil of Sunni & *expletive deleted*it theocracies and would capitualte to them.  We could expect an oil embargo from the Gulf and nuclear blackmail from the Red Sea to the Black Sea.

Such an outcome would pretty much ensure the USA invaded both Iran & SA.

[De Selby]

I do not share your rose-colored view of Iran's mullacracy.  "Any" likely other regime is not going to be better.

The thing is, it's not rose colored.  It's just obvious: Iran is more free, produces less terrorism, and is less anti-semitic and extreme in its ideology than Saudi Arabia.

You choose the measuring stick, and Iran will win by every single one in a comparison with Saudi Arabia except for compliance with US strategic and economic demands.

There would be no moderation or attenuation of terrorist support from the top and there is every likelihood that they would make common cause with Iran's psycho-mullahs. 

I don't get what's not to see about that.  Iran is closer to what was theorized as a means of reducing extremism in Iraq than Saudi Arabia by a wide measure.  It has votes, it tolerates religious minorities, and it doesn't produce Al Qaeda style organizations that travel the globe to blow up buses and office buildings.  There are no Iranian Al Zarqawis and Bin Ladens.

But instead of acknowledging that fact, you keep throwing your lot in with the Saudis, who are in fact the source of funding and ideological support for Al Qaeda.  This is truly impossible to understand.  I think the real problem is that you just don't recognize ending terrorism and extremism as a priority.  If you did, it would make sense to start with the number one supporter of Al Qaeda and its extremist agenda, and that's not Iran or Syria.  Indeed, Iran and Syria are decidedly opposed to the Bin Ladenites.  This does not mean that Iran and Syria are great places; just that they are better than Saudi Arabia in terms of extremist thinking, extremist laws, and terrorism-spawning.  By far.

The closest government in ideology and manner of rule to Saudi Arabia was Afghanistan's Taliban.  Look what that produced.  So what, exactly, is Saudi Arabia's redeeming feature? 

What does Saudi Arabia do that you think is worthy of protection, and how would Saudi Arabia becoming like Iran or Syria make it worse in terms of terrorism?

[Antibubba]

Well, it'd at least break the Wahhabist prohibition on music and celebration. That thing with the pilgrims circling the black cube is so bleak. It needs a laser show on the sides of the thing, big speakers all around, fog machines, balloon releases, paraglider shows...

...and GIANT speakers blaring It's A Small Small World!!! in Arabic.

See if they complain about Guantanamo after that.   

[roo_ster]

More Overlooked History: The Muslim Libel Cases
By Jeffrey Breinholt

Two news flashes on August 1, 2007. First, the lawyers representing the so-called Flying Imams in their lawsuit against US Airways announced that they were not going after the unnamed passengers whose concerns prompted the men to be pulled off the Arizona-bound flight (here). I suppose that is good to know, now that the long-term policy implications of their lawsuit are about to justify (literally) an act of Congress. Second, Cambridge University Press announced that it was going to destroy all copies of the 2006 book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, in response to a libel claim filed in England by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker (here).

Connected? Absolutely. Each story involves people who do not like how information flows these days. Each chose litigation as the means to try to get their way.

Should we be surprised? Hardly. History is replete with examples of sensitive people trying to stop communication that is inconvenient to them. When I was a Utah prosecutor in the 1990s, I recall a Mormon DA who drove around Salt Lake City one night stealing all of the copies of the free underground newspaper, which had him in bed (figuratively) with the controversial town mayor. History is also full of cases by Islamic organizations and individual Muslims who try to use Western litigation to stop the fountain of knowledge. When it comes to the legal merits, they almost never win. When the dismissal happens, they try to claim it was all a silly misunderstanding.

The remarkable thing is that my brethren in the civilized legal profession remain willing to lend credence to these controversies by offering their services, given what is in the law books. The only thing more important to lawyers than billable hours is collecting on those bills, and these cases are consistent losers. Rather than explaining why, I will let the law books do the talking.

Then the author give a list & description of such cases.

[roo_ster]

ss:

Arguing the relative goodness of the various thug regimes in the ME is akin to arguing the merits of cow, chicken & hog manure: in the end, they are all just *expletive deleted*it.

For some odd reason, I do not give much credit to the act of Iranians voting in elections where opposition groups are hounded, imprisoned, and tortured by the gov't.

As to Iran producing less terrorism, I suppose you have never heard of Hezbolla, Hamas, and Al Queda.  All of them have either received material support from or are clients of Iran. 

I think I have made my opinion on SA clear.