SEIZING THE MONEY OF TERRORISTS

Earlier this month, an auction in Iowa offered the chance to buy drug
dealers' assets seized by federal law enforcement agencies. While a
newspaper reported the auctioneer didn't know exactly which items belonged
to the drug dealers, up for sale were diamond rings, marble- topped cabinets
and wooden chairs with cowhide "leopard skin" upholstering.

Back in August, news services around the world reported that a joint
U.S.-Colombian operation had seized $35 million in drug money. According to
news reports, the raid netted more than 300 bundles of U.S. cash--stashed
behind false walls in the kitchen and bathroom of two Bogota apartments.
Each bundle contained $100,000 in denominations of $20s, $50s and $100s.

What do fake leopard skin chairs in Iowa and false walls in Bogota
apartments have to do with the recent terrorist attacks against our nation?
They are reminders that, while the U.S. can seize drug dealer assets both at
home and abroad in conjunction with other countries, we do not have a
similar international agreement in place when it comes to seizing the assets
of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden.

Several executive orders signed by President Bill Clinton authorize the
United States to freeze bin Laden's formidable assets--estimated to be
between $300 million and $1 billion--and those of his Al Qaeda network. But
we have frozen no assets because bin Laden does not bank here. U.S.
officials have persuaded Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to end
the handling of some of bin Laden's money by a few of their banks, but that
is not enough.

We need international help in tracking and seizing these funds, wherever
they are transferred, laundered and banked. And we already have a vehicle
for garnering international support. The International Convention for
Suppression of Financing Terrorism was adopted by the UN General Assembly on
Dec. 9, 1999, signed on behalf of the United States on Jan. 10, 2000, and
transmitted to the U.S. Senate last fall. As of last week, 43 nations have
signed the international agreement, but only four have ratified it.

The pact is ground-breaking because its definition of terrorism is very
broad. Recognizing the well-known axiom that one person's terrorist is
another's freedom fighter, the United Nations in the past has always limited
its definition of terrorism to specific crimes, such as hijacking. This pact
identifies as an offender any person who unlawfully provides or collects
funds with the intention or knowledge that the funds will be used to commit
any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian or
to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a
situation or armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or
context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an
international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act." This
broader definition makes it easier to go after the assets of terrorists and
those who facilitate their evil deeds.

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee is preparing to take up the
agreement. I hope we will be able to ratify the pact and adopt the necessary
implementing legislation swiftly.

Other countries that adhere to the pact will need to pass domestic laws on
asset seizure and money laundering as well, which will be of great
assistance in our global campaign against terrorism. A willingness to pursue
the assets of terrorists must be seen as one of the core strategies of the
war on terrorism.

If we follow the money, we can find terrorists. And if these terrorists have
no refuge for their fortunes, their networks will gradually suffer. The
losses of Sept. 11 can never be measured in terms of dollars. But seizing
the funding that underwrites such evil is one weapon we desperately need in
the U.S. arsenal.