Kicking the Libel Crutch
It's good news for journalists, bad news for Saudi terror
financiers.
by Stephen Schwartz
THE DAILY STANDARD
10/17/2006 12:00:00 AM
ENGLISH LIBEL LAW, long a torment for journalists, has changed dramatically,
with particularly significant consequences for the investigation of the
powerful Saudi subjects who allegedly financed al Qaeda.
On October 10, the Law Lords, the English equivalent of the U.S. Supreme
Court, found that publication of contested facts and statements about public
figures is legal, so long as reportage is done responsibly and serves the
public interest.
The ruling represents a major break with Crown precedent, which almost
uniformly supported the claims of libel plaintiffs against journalists. The
disparity between England, which protected reputations, and the United
States, which sought to guarantee journalistic freedom, led some who claimed
to have been libeled to believe they could get a more sympathetic hearing in
England.
A rush to file libel suits in England was especially noticeable in the
aftermath of September 11, 2001. Many of the plaintiffs were prominent
Saudis, to whom financing of extremist activities on behalf of Wahhabism was
easily traced by journalists, private investigators, and public agencies. In
2002, for instance, the Wall Street Journal reported that a network
of rich Saudis had come under surveillance for possible misuse by
terrorists.
The objects of interest included the al-Rajhi family, with a notable record
in supporting Wahhabi ideology abroad; Sheikh Saleh Kamel, owner of the
Dallah al-Baraka conglomerate; the bin Mahfouz commercial interests;
property developer and financier Yasin al-Kadi, and the Abdul Latif Jameel
business network. Khalid bin Mahfouz and others responded to the charges by
threatening an array of lawsuits (including one against my book The Two
Faces of Islam). Al-Rajhi Banking & Investment wasted millions in
litigation against the Wall Street Journal, gaining no more than the
right to a letter to the editor disclaiming any involvement with terror. But
Muhammad Abdul Latif Jameel won a case against the Journal in the
lower British courts.
Some of the most prominent Saudis in this group were originally identified
in a document listing a "Golden Chain" of al Qaeda financiers, which was
seized in Sarajevo by Bosnian government investigators in 2002. As has been
repeated many times since September 11, 2001, all these Saudi suspects
continue to enjoy impunity inside the kingdom, although Yasin al-Kadi's
substantial assets in the Balkans were seized by local authorities.
Last week, the Law Lords found against Jameel and for the Wall Street
Journal. One may expect that English journalists will celebrate the
achievement of an expanded freedom to investigate and publish uncomforting
facts about powerful interests--the Saudis' and others--without fearing the
de facto censorship previously imposed by the threat of libel
litigation.
The action of the Law Lords may also express the strengthened will of an
important section of the English political and legal establishment to remove
the protections Saudis have long enjoyed in the United Kingdom. English
official determination to expose and punish the illicit transnational
activities of the Saudi-Wahhabi elite is a major victory for security.
Stephen Schwartz is a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard.