[Senate Hearing 108-443]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-443
TERRORISM: RADICAL ISLAMIC INFLUENCE OF CHAPLAINCY OF THE U.S. MILITARY
AND PRISONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 14, 2003
__________
Serial No. J-108-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
93-254 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security
JON KYL, Arizona, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Stephen Higgins, Majority Chief Counsel
David Hantman, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California..................................................... 3
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......... 1
prepared statement........................................... 52
Schumer, Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York... 4
prepared statement........................................... 78
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 7
prepared statement........................................... 81
WITNESSES
Abell, Charles S., Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel
and Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.......... 10
Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington, D.C................................................ 12
Pistole, John S., Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C............... 8
Rogers, Paul E., President, American Correctional Chaplains
Association, Waupun, Wisconsin, accompanied by A.J. Sabree,
Treasurer, American Correctional Chaplains Association,
Atlanta, Georgia............................................... 31
Waller, Michael, Annenberg Professor of International
Communication, Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C.... 29
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Abell, Charles S., Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel
and Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.,
prepared statement............................................. 43
Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, Leesburg,
Virginia, statement............................................ 50
Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 53
Luque, Nancy, Luque Sheinbach LLP, Washington, D.C., statement
and attachment................................................. 64
North American Islamic Trust, Inc., M. Naziruddin Ali, General
Manager, Burr Ridge, Illinois, letter and attachment........... 65
Pistole, John S., Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., prepared
statement...................................................... 68
Rogers, Paul E., President, American Correctional Chaplains
Association, Waupun, Wisoconsin, prepared statement and
attachment..................................................... 73
Waller, Michael, Annenberg Professor of International
Communication, Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C.,
prepared statement and attachment.............................. 84
TERRORISM: RADICAL ISLAMIC INFLUENCE OF CHAPLAINCY OF THE U.S. MILITARY
AND PRISONS
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland
Security,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Kyl,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Kyl, Sessions, Feinstein, Schumer, and
Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Chairman Kyl. Welcome. This hearing of the Judiciary
Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland
Security will come to order. I thank you all for being here
this morning for what I hope will be a very informative
hearing. Let me make a brief opening statement, indicate who
our witnesses today will be, and then call on Vice Chairman,
Senator Feinstein.
In the 2 years since September 11, there have been numerous
hearings, reports, and studies by Congress and outside experts.
Many have focused on examining what led to our vulnerability on
September 11 and what processes need to be reviewed or laws
changed to avoid a repeat of that tragic day.
In reviewing the record of these hearings and reports, a
clear picture emerges of how terrorists exploit a free society
like the United States to conduct the wide range of activities
necessary for effective terror operations. The relationship
between these terrorists and foreign-based sponsors, states,
and global actors also emerges and strongly suggests that the
war on terror at home and the one abroad are in the deepest
sense one and the same.
This seems self-evident, except for the fact that as a
whole we do not approach it this way either analytically or
operationally. Evidence urges that we begin doing so
immediately, not least because the enemy long ago determined
these fronts to be one war.
While the above hearing and report process was proceeding
apace, so were two other things: one the activities of terror
groups, their networks and supporters here and abroad, and,
two, the ongoing efforts of U.S. foreign and domestic
intelligence and enforcement to monitor, interdict, and
prosecute terrorists and their support networks.
If one engages in this sort of integrated analysis long
enough, one could begin to anticipate, for example, what has
emerged in the headlines in recent weeks in regard to both the
Department of Defense and the Bureau of Prison chaplains.
Recent hearings by the Subcommittee on Terrorism have
exposed the growing dominance of a radical sect of Islam in the
United States. This sect, commonly referred to as Wahhabism,
preaches jihad against Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not
tow the Wahhabi line. All 19 of the September 11 hijackers were
followers of Wahhabism, as is Osama bin Laden.
This violent perversion of Islamic faith has been
responsible for terrorist attacks against innocent civilians,
both Muslim and non-Muslim, all over the world. There have been
an increasing number of instances in which Wahhabists have
successfully penetrated key U.S. institutions, such as the
miliary and the our prison system.
As several recent media reports have noted, the two groups
that accredit and recommend Muslim chaplains to the military--
the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Science and an
organization under the umbrella of the American Muslim
Foundation--have long been suspected of links to terrorist
organizations by the Federal Government. Another group accused
of ties to Islamic extremists, the Islamic Society of North
America, refers Muslim clerics to the Bureau of Prisons.
Earlier this month, one of the key architects of the U.S.
military's chaplain program, Abdurahman Alamoudi, was arrested
and charged with an illegal relationship with Libya, long a
state sponsor of terror. Authorities have also charged Captain
James Yee, a Muslim clergyman who was once stationed at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with two counts of mishandling classified
information.
Additionally, the New York State prison system promoted a
Muslim cleric to a position that allowed him to supervise the
hiring and firing of all prison chaplains. He was later removed
from his job when officials discovered he was an Al-Qaeda
sympathizer who incited prisoners against America.
Jose Padilla, a terrorist accused of trying to build a
dirty bomb to unleash in the United States, was exposed to
radical Islam in the U.S. prison system. Richard Reid, the so-
called shoe bomber, was converted to fundamentalist Islam while
serving time in a British prison.
Today's hearing is the third in a series to examine
terrorist ideology, support networks, and state sponsorship. As
I said at the last hearing, to defeat the terrorists, we must
understand their goals, their resources, and their methods,
just as well as they understand our system of freedom and how
to exploit that for their terrible purposes. In other words, we
have got to continue to connect the dots.
Today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony from the FBI,
the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Prisons. To
connect the dots, the Subcommittee will hear from Dr. Michael
Waller, Annenberg Professor of International Communication at
the Institute of World Politics. Dr. Waller will testify, among
other things, to these three important points: one, foreign
states and movements have been financing the promotion of
radical political Islam within America's armed forces and
prisons. Two, this radical Islam preaches extreme intolerance
and hatred of American society, culture, government, and the
principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and it seeks the
ultimate overthrow of the Constitution. Three, terrorists have
exploited America's religious tolerance, and the chaplain
programs in particular, as key elements of infiltrating the
military and the prisons.
In addition, we will hear from Mr. Paul Rogers, who is
President of the American Correctional Chaplains Association,
and he will be accompanied by Mr. A. J. Sabree, Treasurer of
the American Correctional Chaplains Association.
I want to thank Senator Feinstein, and also Senator Schumer
and their staff, for their work in helping to prepare for this
hearing. And at this time, before calling upon the first panel,
I would ask Senator Feinstein to make any opening remarks that
she has.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing.
I believe there is cause for concern. I don't think we
should jump to conclusions. I certainly welcome this hearing as
a fact-finding hearing. I think there are some cases that have
been made public that cause concern, and also provide a
rationale for this hearing.
For example, we can look to the recent dismissal of Imam
Warith Deen Umar, the former head Muslim chaplain for New York
Prisons, who abused his position to promote Islamic radicalism
there. According to Prison Legal News, Umar stated that prison,
quote, ``is the perfect recruitment and training ground for
radicalism and the Islamic religion,'' end quote. That also
gives us cause to take this look. He said that the September 11
hijackers should be honored as martyrs.
We should also note the fact that Richard Reid, the shoe
bomber, was converted to Islam by a radical imam in a British
prison, and there is evidence that Jose Padilla, who was
allegedly sent to the United States to detonate a dirty bomb,
was exposed to Islam during his many stints in American
prisons.
In the U.S. military, there are 4,800 chaplains, 12 of whom
are Muslim. I have seen no suggestion that, other than Captain
Yee, any of these individuals is promoting radical Islamic
beliefs or has any links whatsoever to terrorism. However, I
understand that the military relies on two groups to certify
Islamic chaplains--the Islamic Society of North America, as you
have mentioned, and the American Muslim Armed Forces and
Veterans Affairs Council.
I also understand that some have raised concerns about both
of these groups. So I would like to inquire, and I believe you
do as well, Mr. Chairman, why the military uses the ISNA and
the AMF to certify Islamic chaplains and if there is any reason
not to.
In addition, I believe that most U.S. military Islamic
chaplains were trained at the Graduate School for Islamic
Social Sciences in Leesburg, Virginia. This graduate school has
been raided by United States Customs as part of an
investigation into money being funneled to Al-Qaeda and other
militant Islamic groups. While it is true that no charges have
been filed in connection with this raid, it perhaps does raise
some questions about the hiring of chaplains trained at the
school.
In the Federal prison system, there are 231 full-time civil
service prison chaplains, 10 of them Muslim. Again, I have seen
no suggestion that any of these individuals is promoting
radical Islamic beliefs or has any links whatsoever to
terrorism.
However, we know that several of these individuals in the
Federal prison system were sponsored by ISNA, as well as the
American Muslim Council. I would like to know why the Bureau of
Prisons uses these groups to sponsor prospective Islamic
chaplains and if any reason exists to use other groups.
Mr. Chairman, as you suggested, there are a number of
questions that have emerged about how the United States
military and Federal prisons select chaplains and who sponsors
those individuals. So I hope that the witnesses today will help
us answer these questions.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein. You
hit the nail right on the head with the questions you have
asked and, of course, we know that those are questions that the
panel will want to address.
Senator Schumer, would you like to make an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you. I would, Mr. Chairman. First,
let me thank you and Senator Feinstein for your leadership on
this issue and making sure that we find out the answers to the
questions that you and my friend from California have asked.
As we all know, the hearings come at a crucial time, as we
continue to fight the war on terror, and I am glad that we have
a diverse roster of witnesses with us here today on this
important subject. Let me stress, I would like to hear all the
sides to this. I know you have made efforts to invite all sides
and some people have refused to come, but we are still making
efforts to get everybody to come and answer questions, which I
appreciate.
Generations of immigrants dating back to the first
Americans have come to this land seeking to escape religious
persecution, and we have honored this tradition by making
freedom of worship one of our Nation's most sacred rights.
Seven months ago, I wrote letters to the Inspectors General of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Defense
because I feared that at least when it came to those who
practice Islam in the prisons and the military, those rights
could be in danger.
I had discovered that the few groups charged with
certifying Muslim chaplains in these institutions had several
disturbing ties to a puritanical and intolerant form of Islam
known as Wahhabism. The official state religion in Saudi
Arabia, Wahhabism also provides part of Al-Qaeda's ideological
foundation.
Far from endorsing the pluralistic approach to religious
belief that we all hold dear, Wahhabism espouses an extremist,
anti-Western, exclusionary religious doctrine, and denigrates
other faiths, be they other forms of Islamic belief such as
moderate Sunni, Shia, and Sufi Islam, or Christianity or
Judaism.
I became concerned that these other forms of Islamic
belief, peaceful, inclusive, spiritual ideals held by the
majority of American Muslims, were not being given an
opportunity to express themselves. So I asked the inspectors
general to investigate the groups responsible for certifying
the military and prison chaplains, and I told them in my
letters that my own preliminary digging had uncovered some
disturbing results.
One group, the ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America,
had on its governing board a man named Siraj Wahaj. Mr. Wahaj
is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing that the FBI now believes was master-minded by one of
Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants. Why such a man would remain
on the board for many years afterwards raises a whole lot of
questions.
Another, the Graduate School for Islamic Social Sciences,
is under investigation, and I understand the investigation is
continuing, for terrorist financing. And the third, the
American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, is a
sub-group of the American Muslim Foundation, which is also
under investigation for terrorist financing. They have the same
501(c)(3) number, and that means that the subsidiary group says
it is doing the same thing that the parent group does.
Within a few weeks of having sent my letters, I received
assurances from both inspectors general that they were
examining the situation and would get back to me. Well, as I
have said earlier, that was more than 6 months ago and to this
day, despite numerous follow-up attempts, I have no idea of
what has become of their efforts.
I want to be clear here. I am not saying these groups are
filled with terrorists. Certainly not every member of the group
is a terrorist. I have an enduring respect for the overwhelming
majority of American Muslims, who are peaceful, hard-working,
and patriotic.
Just this summer, my family and I took a trip to Spain,
where we visited a large number of the old Moorish mosques, and
the essential peacefulness and tranquility of the Muslim
religion was apparent in the architecture, the beliefs, and the
history that we studied there.
I am saying, however, that there is enough evidence to
warrant an investigation of these groups to assess their
pluralistic credentials and determine whether they should be
advising, and certainly should be advising exclusively the
Pentagon and the Bureau of Prisons on who should provide
spiritual guidance to American soldiers and inmates.
In the 6 months since I have made this request, the case
for an investigation has grown stronger, not weaker. News
reports and experts who have testified before this Committee
suggest that discrimination against Shia prisoners in Federal
institutions is rampant and that Wahhabi literature is readily
available behind prison walls.
Stephen Schwartz, the author of Two Faces of Islam, says
Shia prisoners are unable to worship freely and may fear for
their safety while incarcerated. We have heard of similar
situations in New York State prisons incidentally, Mr.
Chairman. According to Musin Alidina of the Alkowi Islamic
Center in New York, Shia prisoners send the mosque stacks of
letters every month complaining of mistreatment. That is pretty
serious.
Steven Emerson, the head of the Investigative Project, says
Wahhabi literature makes its way into prison libraries,
courtesy of the Saudi-backed Al-Haramain Foundation.
In June, the websites for the Navy and Air Force chaplains
were found to have links to IslamWorld.net, a website that
espouses Wahhabism. The site contained links to lectures by
fundamental clerics, some of whom advocate jihad against the
United States and denigrate Christianity and Judaism as forms
of disbelief.
All of this seems to point in the direction of our worst
fears. Rather than encouraging a pluralistic environment for
Islamic belief, the chaplains program was promoting only a
specific, narrow, and exclusionary agenda. And then on
September 10, one Muslim military chaplain, Captain James Yee,
was detained for having classified documents about operations
at Camp X-Ray. We don't know the full details of the
investigation of Captain Yee, but he was arrested and charged
last week, and more serious charges may be forthcoming.
Almost lost in the tumult surrounding Yee's detention was
another far more stunning revelation. In 2001, another Muslim
military chaplain, Abdul Mohammed, traveled to Saudi Arabia for
the haj with a number of other Muslim U.S. service members on a
trip that was fully paid for by the World Muslim League. The
World Muslim League is a known Saudi organization dedicated to
front Wahhabism, and in 1996 the CIA identified it as a front
for Al-Qaeda. What is such a group doing sponsoring American
soldiers to go on a haj. Go on a haj, great. Why this group,
and what happened there?
So it boggles my mind that someone the CIA identified as a
front for Al-Qaeda would be allowed to pay for travel expenses
of some of our active soldiers. Who knows who had access to our
loyal service members while they were in Saudi Arabia.
Then there is more bad news coming from associates of the
chaplains program. On September 30, the FBI arrested Abdurahman
Alamoudi, the man responsible for starting the military's
Muslim chaplain program, charging him with violating the Libya
Sanctions Act.
Despite all of these developments, and despite all of the
connections between Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, and the
organizations involved in the Muslim chaplain programs, I have
not heard back from either the Pentagon or the Bureau of
Prisons about the status of the investigations I requested over
6 months ago.
We live in a post-9/11 world. Everyone knows that. It is a
world in which terrible events have taught us, taught my city,
people I know, and myself, of course, that you can't be too
careful. It is a world in which certain groups are sworn
enemies of our pluralistic way of life, and it is a world in
which we now know that incitement breeds hate that can
sometimes give way to violence.
Does the evidence show that the organizations that endorse
Muslim chaplains for our military and prisons are part of this
movement? No, but evidence and revelations over the last 6
months show that there has been a lot of smoke surrounding
these groups, and the IGs of Prisons and the military ought to
find out whether there is fire. At the very least, an
investigation is warranted, and we sit here waiting and I at
least sit here wondering why that is not occurring, at least in
terms of the information that I have been given.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer.
Senator Sessions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I salute you for
your strong leadership and consistent leadership on this issue
to deal openly and honestly with a problem that is very real. I
know none of us enjoys the prospect of confronting the question
of chaplains. It is something we would prefer not to deal with,
but it is a very real problem, as evidence has shown us.
I have some remarks that I would put in the record, Mr.
Chairman, but I would note that, as I understand it, in the
appointment of a chaplain they have to be endorsed by a
religious organization of some kind. That endorsement is
critical to the maintaining of their ability to be a chaplain.
I have a Methodist friend who is a chaplain. He maintains his
connection with the United Methodist Church. If he loses that,
he probably would lose his ability to be a chaplain.
So does that group who endorses have the ability to control
or influence in a way that may be contrary to the interests of
this country? I think we have a right to ask that and I look
forward to the hearing.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
Just as a preliminary matter, to show just how this
terrorism can reach every one of us, we noted the 1-year
anniversary of the Bali bombing just a year ago. I would note
with sadness that Sunday was the first anniversary of Professor
Mike Waller's cousin's death, Ed Waller, who was killed in the
Bali bombing last year. I hope that after the first panel, you
will be interested in the testimony that Professor Waller and
the other panelists will provide in the second panel to help
paint the picture here of what we are trying to deal with.
With that, let me introduce the panel that will first
testify. John Pistole began his career with the FBI in 1983,
and since that time he has held a number of important positions
in the FBI, including Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the
FBI's Boston office. In September 2003, Mr. Pistole was
appointed Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division.
That is obviously the point of his testifying here today,
because in that position he is responsible for directing the
FBI's counterterrorism efforts.
Charles Abell, with the Department of Defense, was
appointed by the President as Principal Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness on November 15, 2002. He
is the primary assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, providing staff advice to the
Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Before
joining the Defense Department, Mr. Abell served as a
professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee and was lead staffer for the Subcommittee on
Personnel. He entered active-duty service as an enlisted
soldier and concluded his Army career by retiring as a
lieutenant colonel.
Director Harley Lappin, of the Bureau of Prisons, joined
the Bureau of Prisons in 1985. He began his career as a
correctional treatment specialist at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Texarkana, Texas, and held a variety of
positions at eight different Bureau of Prisons locations around
the country. In July of 2001, Mr. Lappin was promoted to
Regional Director for the Bureau's Mid-Atlantic Region and
became the Bureau's seventh director on April 4 of this year.
Clearly, we have the people who can answer the questions
that have been provided here and I am delighted to welcome all
of you to be with us today. I thank you very much.
John Pistole, we will start with you, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN S. PISTOLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Pistole. Good morning, Chairman Kyl. Thank you. Vice
Chair Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Sessions,
thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning to talk
about a couple of things: first, the FBI's role, in close
coordination with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in the
prevention of terrorist recruiting within the Federal Bureau of
Prisons system, and, second, as to the FBI's role, in concert
with the Department of Defense, in the assessment of the
translators and chaplaincy program within the Department of
Defense as to the ramifications of what that may mean from a
counterterrorism perspective.
As the Subcommittee is well aware, the FBI has changed our
focus following the events of September 11, where we have made
counterterrorism our top priority and redirected resources
accordingly. The emphasis has been placed on inteligence, with
prevention of future terror attacks as our overriding goal.
Counterterrorism investigations have become intelligence-
driven, meaning that the criminal investigations into terrorist
activity are considered tools to achieve disruption,
dismantlement, and prevention. The collective assessment of the
intelligence community, including the FBI, is that Al-Qaeda
remains the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and
our allies' interests around the world. We believe Al-Qaeda is
seeking to recruit individuals within the United States, as
demonstrated by their training manuals and detainee interviews.
Some of these terrorists seek to exploit our freedom to
exercise religion, we believe, to their advantage by using
radical forms of Islam to recruit operatives. Unfortunately,
U.S. correctional institutions are a viable venue for such
radicalization and recruitment.
This not something new. Other extremist groups have also
followed this blueprint. Since 1979, the Bureau of Prisons,
along with the FBI, have been aware of the Aryan Nation, a
violent neo-Nazi white supremacist organization that has been
engaged in prison recruiting. It is an important aspect of the
Aryan Nation's agenda, given that many of its members are
serving lengthy prison sentences.
The Aryan Nation conducts extensive prison outreach through
correspondence from area chapter members. Their leaders visit
prison facilities specifically for the purpose of recruiting
members, promoting racial intolerance and hatred, and spreading
neo-Nazi propaganda. Terrorist sympathizers, we believe, do the
same.
Senator Feinstein mentioned one such instance involving
Warith Deen Umar, the former administrative chaplain for the
State of New York Department of Corrections. A radical Muslim,
Umar denied prisoners access to mainstream imams and materials.
He sought to incite prisoners against America, preaching that
the 9/11 hijackers should be remembered as martyrs and heroes.
Umar has since been banned from entering the New York State
prisons and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
To assist in ferreting out potential radicalization issues
within the Federal Bureau of Prisons system, the Bureau of
Prisons maintains a presence on the FBI's National Joint
Terrorism Task Force here in Washington.
Recruitment of inmates, we believe, within the prison
system will continue to be a problem throughout our country.
Inmates are often ostracized, abandoned by, or isolated from
their family and friends, leaving them susceptible to
recruitment. Membership in the various radical groups offer
inmates protection, positions of influence, and a network they
can correspond with both inside and outside of prison. Several
examples have been mentioned here this morning already.
Turning to the Guantanamo Bay issue, the FBI is working
directly with the Department of Defense on the issues
surrounding the recent arrest or a translator on July 23 in
Jacksonville, a chaplain on September 10, and another
translator in Boston on September 29. The FBI considers these
matters to be potentially serious breaches of national security
and will continue to work jointly with the Department of
Defense in order to successfully resolve these matters and
limit the damage they may have caused.
The FBI is also working with DOD and BOP to assess the
mechanisms and protocols by which chaplains and translators are
vetted for employment, as has been mentioned. In addition, the
FBI is evaluating the protocols for ongoing security
assessments of such employees during sensitive assignments,
such as more frequent polygraph examinations.
In conclusion, we all recognize that terrorism represents a
continuing global problem. Part of the solution, we believe, is
grounded in what we have experienced since September 11, which
is unprecedented domestic and international cooperation and
coordination. The threat terrorism poses must always be
considered imminent. We must constantly look at improving ways
to gather, analyze, and disseminate intelligence. In forging
partnerships with local, State and Federal law enforcement and
correctional agencies, the FBI has made considerable progress
toward achieving and implementing these goals.
Again, Chairman Kyl, Vice Chair Feinstein, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pistole appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Mr. Pistole.
Charles Abell.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. ABELL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Abell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. I would like to talk to you today about officership
and professionalism in our armed forces. There is no aspect of
our officer corps more central to the success of the U.S.
military, and this is true whether the officer be an
infantryman, an aviator, a chaplain, doctor, or lawyer.
The levels of integrity and personal conduct required of an
officer are high, and with good reason. Officers may be
required to make decisions affecting millions of dollars. More
importantly, their judgment and decisions may mean the
difference between life and death for the troops with whom they
serve. A ship's captain literally holds the crew's fate in his
or her hands, while a lawyer in-theater reviewing the legality
of proposed target selections during a ground campaign plays
similarly a key role in the ultimate success.
Active-duty officers come from a variety of commissioning
sources, including our service academies, the Reserve Officer
Training Corps programs at colleges and universities, the
officer candidate schools or officer training schools of the
services, and, for some, direct appointments, especially for
physicians, attorneys and chaplains.
These civilian professionals are assessed directly into the
officer corps and then attend training that focuses on their
role as commissioned officers. Each military department has a
chaplains corps, comprised of highly qualified men and women
who become members of the armed forces to minister to service
members and their families.
Chaplains are commissioned officers. They take the same
oath to support and defend the Constitution as their doctor,
lawyer, or line officer peers. My emphasis on this point is
that the characteristics of an officer is by no means intended
to minimize the importance of the professional training and
religious certification which chaplain candidates must
complete. I simply want to focus on the fact that chaplains,
like members of the professions of law and medicine, must
initially meet the very high standards of commissioned military
service. The chaplain's commission is, in fact, a discretionary
appointment based as much on his or her officership qualities
as on their ministerial credentialing.
There are basically three ways in which our system ensures
that officers are assessed and retained based on their ability
to meet standards. These are: professional credentialing,
security clearances, and, once the officer is on active duty,
monitoring of his or her performance. I am aware that the issue
of credentialing is of particular interest today and I want to
begin with a review of that process.
To ensure quality, a college degree is a fundamental
requirement for joining the officer corps. In addition to
educational requirements, the services employ a variety of
assessments to qualify candidates for overall commissioning
standards, as well as for assignment within specialties which
require particular aptitudes, such as nuclear engineering or
aviation.
The military system for procurement and training of
commissioned officers is designed to obtain individuals of high
quality. In the case of professions such as law, medicine and
theology, there are additional credentialing requirements.
These are not instead of, but in addition to the standards
required of any officer.
We began revising the directive for credentialing chaplains
almost a year ago. This morning, I signed a memorandum that
puts part of that revision into effect, while we continue to
staff and coordinate and get the legal checks on the entire
memorandum. This new guidance seeks to clarify several Defense
policies concerning prospective chaplains, and in particular
ensures that the Department of Defense stays out of the
business of approving religious organizations.
One standard for a qualifying organization begins with the
evaluation already defined by the Federal Government in
awarding Internal Revenue Service 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
Following the notification of the IRS 501(c)(3) status, we
verify that the organization supports a lay constituency and is
prepared to submit a qualified applicant for consideration.
Finally, and most importantly, we do a thorough background
investigation of the individual. I will turn to the security
process in just a moment, but I want to mention the last
standard required by the directive, and that is that a chaplain
candidate must be willing to provide a personal affirmation to
support the First Amendment rights of the entire population--
that is, military members and their dependents--regardless of
the chaplain's faith or that of the individual the chaplain
serves.
As with all officers, the security screening of officer
candidates is no less thorough than the review of their
educational and professional credentials. Primary vehicles are
the national agency check and a local agency check and a credit
report, all conducted through the FBI and local agencies. More
detailed reports are completed as indicated on a case-by-case
basis. Applicants must also complete a personnel security
questionnaire and are required to be able to hold a secret
clearance in order to receive their commission. Services verify
citizenship and perform medical screening and evaluations to
determine overall fitness to serve.
Finally, once on active duty, all officers, all militiary
personnel, are continuously monitored in three ways. There is
an ongoing day-to-day evaluation by their supervisor. There are
annual performance evaluations and the commander's oversight of
his or her operation. Each of these avenues, while possibly
low-key and on a day-to-day basis, is a critical link in the
chain of responsibility for enforcing performance standards.
To our regret, we know that pre-employment screening is not
fool-proof, whether it takes place in the public or the private
sector. Military services strive to enforce the highest
standards of personal conduct and performance by both officers
and enlisted personnel.
Despite the best efforts of leadership, we are all aware of
examples where individuals in all military specialties fall
short. It may be in relation to official duties, as in the
theft of Government property or professional negligence by a
physican or an engineer, or it might be an off-duty offense
such as an assault or a burglary.
While every such case is a tragedy for both the individual
and the institutions, we believe our system is designed to
minimize these instances and to maintain the highest standards
of personal ethics and behavior which we require.
People continue to be the most vital resource of the
Department of Defense. Certainly, they are the most critical
component of our readiness. We place intense demands on them.
They are highly motivated, highly skilled professional service
members. Currently, we have a force of over 2.3 million men and
women serving around the world who have each sworn to protect
our freedoms with their lives, if necessary. Over 4,000 of
these are military chaplains who serve with our troops
everyday.
The reputation and excellence of the United States armed
forces has been earned. We are the best in the world, and our
allies, friends and neighbors strive to emulate the
professionalism of our force. Thank you for providing me the
opportunity to publicly recognize the men and women who serve
so proudly.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abell appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Mr. Abell.
Mr. Lappin, please.
STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Lappin. Good morning, Chairman Kyl and members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today to
discuss the efforts the Federal Bureau of Prisons has taken to
ensure we are preventing the recruitment of terrorists and
extremists in our Federal prisons.
We understand the importance of controlling and preventing
the recruitment of inmates into terrorism. We also acknowledge
that this is an evolving issue, especially as it relates to
relationships between terrorism, certain radical or extremist
ideologies, and the penchant of those who adhere to these
ideologies to recruit others to their position. We continue to
evaluate our policies and practices, and are certainly open to
recommendations to make improvements in this area.
We are aware of the particular vulnerabilities that inmates
have to being recruited and converted to be terrorists, and we
are very aware of the need to guard against the spread of
terrorist or extremist ideas in Federal prisons.
The Bureau of playing a significant role in our Nation's
war on terrorism. Our practices in institution security and
inmate management are geared toward the prevention of violence,
criminal behavior, disruptive behavior, or other threats to
institution security and public safety, including the
radicalization of inmates.
We have taken a number of measures over the last several
years to ensure we are preventing disruption in our facilities,
to include eliminating most inmate organizations in order to
control the influence that outside entities have on Federal
inmates, enhancing our information and monitoring systems,
enhancing our intelligence-gathering and sharing capabilities,
and more effectively identifying and managing inmates who could
perpetrate disruption.
Additionally, we have taken steps to strengthen the
selection process and training of our chaplains, who work
closely with the inmate population. Beginning in 1996, we began
requiring that our imams meet the same educational standards as
all of our chaplains, meet the requirement for an endorsement
by a national organization, thereby allowing us to verify the
validity and credibility of the endorsing body.
We have been managing inmates with ties to terrorism for
over a decade by confining them in secure conditions and
monitoring their communications closely. All of these inmates
are clearly identified and tracked in our information systems.
We have established a strategy that focuses on the appropriate
levels of containment and isolation to ensure inmates with
terrorist ties do not have the opportunity to radicalize or
recruit other inmates.
The Bureau has worked diligently particularly over the past
2 years to enhance our intelligence-gathering and sharing
capabilities in order to ensure a seamless flow of intelligence
information between our agency, the FBI, the National Joint
Terrorism Task Force, and other law enforcement and
counterterrorism agencies.
In addition to containing and isolating inmates who could
attempt to radicalize other inmates, we employ a second very
important strategy in lessening the opportunities for
recruiting inmates to radical causes. We provide inmates with a
wide variety of programs that have proven to give them the
knowledge, skills and abilities they need to become more
productive, law-abiding citizens when they are released from
prison.
Among the many programs offered to inmates in the Bureau of
Prisons are the religious programs we provide to the
approximately 30 faiths represented within the population. All
indications are that the overwhelming majority of inmates
participate in religious programs in a positive, healthy and
productive way.
There are approximately 9,600 Muslim inmates, which is 5.5
percent of the inmate population. The percent of Federal
inmates who identify themselves as Muslim has remained very
stable for close to a decade.
We employ full-time civil service chaplains to lead worship
services and provide pastoral care and spiritual guidance to
the inmates, to oversee the breadth of religious programs, and
to monitor the accommodation provided by contractual spiritual
leaders and community volunteers.
Our religious contractors and volunteers assist and augment
the services of civil service chaplains. We screen all staff,
volunteers, and contractors to avoid hiring or contracting with
anyone who is likely to pose a threat to institution security.
BOP civil service chaplains meet all the requirements for
employment as Federal law enforcement officers, including a
field investigation, criminal background check, reference
check, drug screening, pre-employment suitability interview,
and a panel interview. The BOP expects chaplains to provide a
full spectrum of programs and practices across multiple
religions. Chaplains, like all BOP employees, are strictly
prohibited from using their position to condone, support, or
encourage violence or other inappropriate behavior.
The BOP is committed to providing inmates with the
opportunity to practice their faith, while at the same time
ensuring that Federal prisoners are not radicalized or
recruited for terrorist causes. The support that has been
provided by the FBI, the agencies represented on the National
Joint Terrorist Task Force, and other components of the
Department of Justice and many other members of the law
enforcement and intelligence communities, have been invaluable
in our efforts in this area.
Chairman Kyl, this concludes my formal statement and I look
forward to answering any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much.
Let me begin by making a point and then asking Mr. Pistole
to respond, if he desires to do so. It is beyond the purview of
this hearing this morning to either examine any ongoing case
under investigation or prosecution--I think we all understand
that--or specific matters relating to counterterrorism which
relate to primarily Mr. Pistole's responsibilities, which is
not to say that there hasn't been significant coordination
among the three of you with respect to counterterrorism aspects
of the things that we are talking about. I guess I assume that
those matters are being worked, but it is beyond the scope of
our hearing today to talk about counterterrorism aspects of
this, except in the most general sense.
Mr. Pistole, do you have anything further to say about
that?
Mr. Pistole. Well, yes, Chairman Kyl. I appreciate your
sensitivity to that issue, and you are correct in your
assessment that there are a number of ongoing either
investigations or proactive steps being taken, in concert with
DOD and BOP, to assess and to determine the extent of the
radicalization and the end use of whatever intelligence may be
gathered by these individuals.
Chairman Kyl. Right. I wanted to make that clear. Now, let
me ask a question of you, Mr. Pistole, and also to Mr. Abell.
What you have said regarding the Department of Defense process
for determining who would qualify as a chaplain, in addition to
the qualities of an officer which you made clear--you said that
the new guidance which you just signed a portion of this
morning will ensure that the Department stays out of the
business of approving religious organizations. Then you say one
standard for a qualifying organization begins with the
evaluation already defined by IRS.
Now, my question is to both of you whether or not the
granting of a tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) by the
IRS would necessarily determine whether or not an organization
is engaged in illegal activities or activities contrary to the
defined public policy of the United States.
Mr. Pistole. From an FBI perspective, that would have no
bearing on whether we could either prove from a criminal
investigative standpoint a person's activity in supporting
terrorism or any linkage thereof. And just to clarify, the FBI
is not in the protocol of the screening of the individuals who
would become the chaplains or the translators, unless a
background check for an FBI record would be conducted. That
would be the extent of it.
Chairman Kyl. Nor is the FBI involved with the IRS in
determining the propriety of granting a 501(c)(3) designation
to a particular group. Is that correct?
Mr. Pistole. That is correct, Senator.
Chairman Kyl. So, Mr. Abell, my question to you is, other
than verifying that the entity has a tax-exempt status under
the IRS Code, is there anything in the granting of that that
would necessarily screen an organization with respect to the
issues that we are discussing today?
Mr. Abell. Not to my knowledge, sir. We have talked to the
IRS about the processes that they use and they are more, it is
my understanding, to determine that it is a valid organization
that meets the tenets of the IRS Code.
Chairman Kyl. Right. Now, while you say that you are going
to stay out of the business of approving religious
organizations, the next sentence in your statement says ``Our
standard for a qualifying organization begins with the IRS
determination.'' So I am a little unclear.
If you are out of the business of approving and then you
have a standard for qualifying the organizations, could you
square that circle for me?
Mr. Abell. I will try, Senator.
Chairman Kyl. And my second question in that regard is what
is the purpose for qualifying an organization?
Mr. Abell. I understand. In the past, the Department of
Defense had a process under which various religions, if you
will, would apply for recognition by the Department of Defense.
It was a process in which they had to come in and demonstrate
in writing, and fill out an application and demonstrate in
writing a number of criteria.
At the end of that process, the Armed Forces Chaplains
Board would make a recommendation to the person who sits in my
position to approve that organization or that religion, if you
will, as one that could provide chaplains to the armed forces.
When I came into the office, we began to look at that and
wondered what was the Department of Defense doing--what was our
core competency to approve a religion. And as I look back over
the history, as the Department searched for a way to sort out
whether there was a religion, if you will, or a church behind
an individual chaplain, that is what they were attempting to
do.
So we looked for an alternative. We started out about a
year ago. We are very near the completion of that process, and
we looked to the IRS as the agency that would tell us that it
was a valid organization, that it had a structure and was
formed to perform that function.
After that, we look at it to say does it have a lay
constituency. In the term of art, that means is there a church
out there, is there a group of people who come to these people
to meet and practice their religion. And then do they have
candidates who might come forward to be considered to be a
chaplain in the armed services? So that is sort of three steps
at that point. The point I would like to make is that once you
have made it through those three hurdles, what you have earned
is an application to come to the military.
Chairman Kyl. If I could, will you be soliciting
applications from groups or will you simply passively accept
applications and then go through this process? What is the plan
in that regard?
Mr. Abell. The groups approach us when they have candidates
that they would like to press forward or present for
consideration to be a chaplain. It is not beyond the realm that
we might go seek--if we had a constitency within our armed
forces and had no organizations that already come forward, we
might go seek that. In fact, as a result of the last several
months of activities, we are looking around to see if there are
organizations that might provide us Muslim chaplains other than
the two that currently provide it.
Chairman Kyl. So would it be fair to say that no longer
will it be the Department of Defense policy that one or two
specific organizations would have the sole authority to approve
or to nominate members to the chaplaincy?
Mr. Abell. That is true.
Chairman Kyl. And would that be one of the biggest changes
in the policy that you are moving toward adopting?
Mr. Abell. I think that certainly is a major part of it.
From a purely theoretical view, I would have argued that those
two folks, those two organizations never were granted in any
way sole authority, but de facto they are the only two who have
provided Muslim chaplains to date.
Chairman Kyl. Do you know whether or not there were
attempts by other Muslim clerics or other groups to support
Muslim clerics who attempted to be nominated for officer status
in the U.S. military who were turned down because they weren't
sponsored by those two organizations?
Mr. Abell. No, sir, none, to my knowledge.
Chairman Kyl. Now, Mr. Lappin, I don't want to let you off
the hook. I have just got another minute or so and I wanted to
begin to get into some of the things that you had to say.
I am unclear based on your testimony what the policy of the
Bureau of Prisons is going to be now. You talk about the
qualifications, which include as number four endorsement by a
recognizing endorsing organization. What I would like to have
you address is kind of the same questions that I put to Mr.
Abell.
Who are those endorsing organizations in the case of the
Islamic chaplains or clerics, and are there any changes that
have been made in your policy in the last few weeks?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, sir. It has not been our practice to go
out and ask organizations to recruit chaplains for us.
Chairman Kyl. It has or has not?
Mr. Lappin. It has not been.
Chairman Kyl. It has not.
Mr. Lappin. We have an open and continuous advertisement
for chaplains throughout the country and anyone can apply. They
are then responsible for identifying an endorsing agency, but
they all must first meet the minimum requirements for a Federal
law enforcement officer, which I mentioned included screening,
an interview, a panel interview, field investigation check,
criminal history check, vouchering of employers over the last 5
years, drug screening, and certainly a citizen of the U.S. or a
legal resident.
Beyond that, they must have a B.A. or a B.S. from an
accredited college, a master's of divinity, or 90 semester
hours towards those credits, and a minimum of 2 years of
ministry experience, and then an endorsement. An endorsement is
just a small portion of, I guess, the application process.
When they bring forth an endorsing agency, we then go to
the endorsing agency and ask them to provide to us support
justification as to why there should be an endorsing agency, at
which time we then investigate, and now coordinate closely with
the FBI and the other National Joint Terrorism Task Force to
ensure who we are discussing these issues with.
Again, they are attesting to the fact this individual is
suitable for ministry in this area. They assess or they provide
us input on their experience with this individual and the
individual's experience and that they have no present or past
legal or moral barriers to serving as a chaplain. So,
collectively, all those things go into the process of selecting
a chaplain. Our chaplains are not selected by the chaplaincy
corps. They are then selected by an administrator who oversees
the institution or the region, so they are not being selected
by the chaplaincy corps.
Chairman Kyl. We are going to turn now to Senator
Feinstein, but let me just ask you for a yes or no answer. In
the past, have you used as an endorsing organization the
American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, the
Islamic Society of North America and its Graduate School of
Islamic Social Sciences?
Mr. Lappin. We have used ISNA and AMC or AMF. We have not
used the others because no one has come forth with them as an
endorsing agency.
One individual did bring forth, I believe, the Veterans.
They have failed to send us the information so that we could
verify their status as an endorsing agency.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein?
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. I
would like to follow up on your questions. We talked about
three endorsing agencies. You have just mentioned them: the
Islamic Society of North America, the American Muslim Armed
Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, and the Graduate School
for Islamic Social Sciences.
Now, Mr. Abell, do I understand it that the Defense
Department will no longer use those organizations as endorsing
organizations for chaplains?
Mr. Abell. No, ma'am. That is not correct. They won't have
exclusive endorsing rights, if you will. Recognizing that they
are under investigation, we are seeking others, and should
these organizations be determined to have violated their
principles or to somehow be indicted, then we would--the
members of those--the chaplains who were endorsed by those
folks would have to find another endorsing agency.
Senator Feinstein. Do you know who funds those
organizations? Do you know where the money comes from?
Mr. Abell. Only what I read in the papers, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask the same question to Mr.
Lappin. Are you going to continue to use those three
organizations? And, secondly, do you know who funds them?
Mr. Lappin. I am not familiar with who funds them. We have
not hired any Muslim chaplains since August of 2001. We
probably will not hire any, at least from these endorsing
agencies, until the investigations are completed.
Senator Feinstein. And if it was shown that they were
funded by Saudi Arabia and that they promoted the religious
beliefs of the extremist Wahhabi sect of Islam, would that
change your view about these organizations?
Mr. Abell. Yes, ma'am. I think that that would cause us to
cease to recognize those organizations, and then, as I said,
the individual chaplains, as long as they had maintained their
oath and their conduct and performance had been outstanding,
they would have an opportunity to find another endorsing
agency.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I might just say that some experts
have said that they are funded by Saudi Arabia, and I would
like to ask that you determine this and let this Subcommittee
know if that, in fact, is correct. And I would like to know
what the policy would be about having militant Wahhabists as
chaplains in either the Bureau of Prisons or our Defense
facilities. If you could answer that, that would be great.
Mr. Lappin. Well, I would agree, if we received that type
of information about an endorsing agency, we would certainly
change our position on using them as an endorsing agency in the
future. And as I said, we do not plan to hire any chaplains,
Muslim chaplains at this time who are being referred by an
endorsing agency that is under investigation.
Senator Feinstein. I am asking you to do a little bit more
than just be passive and receive. I am asking that you find
out.
Mr. Lappin. We will do that.
Senator Feinstein. And, Mr. Abell, will you do that as
well?
Mr. Abell. Yes, ma'am. As you know, the Department is not
investigating. We turn to our colleagues in the Department of
Justice for that. But we are in communication with them over
this.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Now, I would like to ask another
question along a slightly different line. Two translators at
Guantanamo--former taxi driver Ahmed Mahalba and Air Force
senior airman Ahmed Al-Halibi--both have been arrested. And I
believe customs inspectors found classified information in
Mahalba's luggage, and Al-Halibi allegedly tried to pass
sensitive information to Syria.
The Boston Herald has reported that both Mahalba and Al-
Halibi had been hired even though Mahalba had financial
problems and Al-Halibi had already been investigated for making
anti-American statements.
In an article by the Cox News Service, Kevin Henzell, a
spokesman for the American Translators Association, said that
under normal circumstances neither man would have been hired,
but because there is such a demand for Arabic language
speakers, the Government may have overlooked certain red flags.
Thomas West, the head of the American Translators
Association, was quoted as saying, ``They were desperate and
sort of grabbing at straws. It just ignores the whole idea
there are professional translators out there when you start
grabbing taxi drivers.''
Would you comment, please, Mr. Abell?
Mr. Abell. Shortly after September 11, 2001, it became
obvious to the Department of Defense, and I am sure the whole
of the Federal Government, that we did not have sufficient
numbers of Arabic linguists or translators or interrogators to
prosecute the global war on terror to the extent that we were
going to need them. Then what immediately followed was an
intensive recruiting effort. In that recruiting effort, we
looked to folks who had the ability to speak and would then--
either to translate or to interrogate, depending on their skill
set.
I think it is fair to say that folks were brought on with
sort of interim-level checks and then the more detailed checks
to follow, and I think the results of that are as we are seeing
here. We have found a couple who were not as trustworthy as we
had hoped initially. But there was an initial push. I think we
all recognized that we did not have enough Arabic linguists
already employed to meet our requirements.
Senator Feinstein. Now, I understand that some of the
civilian translators at Guantanamo, including Mr. Mahalba, are
from military contractors, such as the San Diego-based Titan
Corporation. What background checks and vetting do DOD
contractors do on contract translators?
Mr. Abell. We do use contractors as a means to hire
linguists and interrogators. The Titan Corporation is among
those. They run a background check, and then, of course, the
military does a more detailed check. And as I said, in our rush
to meet the requirements, the mere numerical requirements, I
think folks were brought on based on those initial checks, and
then the more detailed checks followed as time permitted.
Senator Feinstein. Are you doing anything to change your
procedure in this regard?
Mr. Abell. Oh, yes, ma'am. We have a number of programs
that we are implementing to bolster our ability to have
linguists in a number of languages, not just Arabic, to include
a new reserve program where the members would be a part of the
various reserve components. We hope never to be caught in this
position again, but we were.
Senator Feinstein. Do translators at Guantanamo have free
movement throughout the prison facility? I have been there so I
have seen how it is set up, but can they move about and talk
with prisoners at will?
Mr. Abell. I have not been to Guantanamo since the global
war on terror prisoners were brought there. It is my
understanding that they do not, but that is an understanding,
secondhand knowledge. I have not been there.
Senator Feinstein. Because there is some testimony from a
man by the name of Bill Tierney who worked as a translator at
Guantanamo in February and March of 2002, and I believe he
stated recently that interpreters who worked with guards could
roam the facility unescorted, were able to speak one-on-one
with detainees. So it would seem to me that that is worthwhile
checking out. And could you please make available to the
Committee the memo you referred to earlier?
Mr. Abell. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you.
Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I was
raised to respect other people's religion, and I think that is
important. I try to take my faith seriously, and I respect
others who take their faiths seriously. But we need to think
clearly here about some tendencies that are in certain parts of
the Islamic groups that are radicalized that do not respect our
freedom, they do not respect the liberty that we have, and they
see other faiths as a threat, something that needs to be
eliminated. A small group, but it is real, and we might as well
understand that.
Mr. Abell, I would like to just pursue a little bit this
endorser concept. As I understand it from my friend, who is a
Methodist chaplain, he remains a member of the Methodist Annual
Conference. He has to be in good standing of that conference.
If they require educational programs, he has to maintain those.
And if for some reason he loses that imprimatur of the
conference of the Methodist Church, then he may not be able to
continue as a chaplain. Is that correct?
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. So an endorsing organization has a
continuing involvement with the person that they endorse. It is
not just, okay, we recommend the chaplain to the military or to
the prison system. This person has to remain loyal to that
group to some degree. And if the group is not a healthy
organization, doesn't that add an additional threat to the
military or to the prison system?
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. It certainly is a concern.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Lappin?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, it is, sir. In fact, if that were the
case, our chaplains can change endorsing agencies. We would
probably ask them to do so.
Senator Sessions. But the difficulty is that if your
endorsing agency is not legitimate, then we have got a problem.
Senator Kyl raised a question, and I think it is quite valid.
Are you saying, Mr. Abell, that if the IRS says that an entity,
a religious entity, is legitimate, therefore they are
legitimate for the purposes of the Department of Defense?
Mr. Abell. No, sir. That is one screen that we use. We rely
on the IRS to have determined that this is an organization that
has structure and meets their requirements. So that prevents
you or me from creating the Church of the Texaco Star at the
burned-out gas station or something and sending forth a
chaplain. I hope there is no Church of the Texaco Star.
Senator Sessions. I recall one fellow tried to have the
Church of the New Song. He was a prisoner and wanted to have
steak and wine as communion services twice a week and filed a
lawsuit to that effect. So you are right. You can have bogus
groups.
Mr. Pistole, as a former Federal prosecutor who worked with
the FBI, I am aware that there are Department of Justice
regulations--I have not had a chance to look at them--that
provide special cautions against investigating church groups.
Is that still in the Department of Justice guidelines?
Mr. Pistole. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Sessions. And how does that--and I remember in this
Senate we had a fuss, which shocked me, that an agent could not
go into an open worship service and see if they were planning
attacks on America. I think we got past that. But what are the
restraints that constrain an agent when they do investigations
if the entity is a church as opposed to some other secular
corporation?
Mr. Pistole. Well, Senator, as you are aware, the PATRIOT
Act did change a lot of that for the FBI and other
investigative agencies in terms of domestic investigations
whereby if we have predication on an individual who goes into a
mosque or a church or some type of religious facility that that
person is somehow related to terrorist activity, then clearly
we can have an undercover agent go in, a cooperative witness,
somebody go in who is wired up and can record those
conversations, can take down that information, and do
everything that we can to prevent that person, whether it is an
imam, a cleric, whoever it may be, from inciting others to
violence.
Now, obviously there is a fine line between extremism,
which is protected under the First Amendment, obviously, and
the ability to incite jihad in the commonly accepted term as
opposed to, you know, spiritual development, as it has
historically been. So we can do that, and there is no
limitation from our perspective. In fact, we--
Senator Sessions. It is still more difficult, is it not,
for you to--or is there still a hangover sense that causes you,
maybe rightly, to be less aggressive in investigating an entity
that has religious connections and claims itself to be a church
as opposed to a group of drug dealers or Mafia types?
Mr. Pistole. In all probability, I would like to think not,
given everything that has happened since 9/11, but, sure, if
there is a situation where there is some concern about the
religious aspects, an individual agent may have some
reservations. But as head of the Counterterrorism Division, I
can tell you that the policy is that there is no restriction
there, as long as we have the predication on the individual.
Obviously, we are not investigating the institution, the
religion, anything like that.
Senator Sessions. With regard to the FBI and your
investigations and Mr. Abell's problem of endorsing
organizations, I understand Mr. Abell to suggest that if there
were an indictment or a conviction, he would not use somebody
as an endorsing organization. But as a background and as a
security action, we are not required to take that risk, are we?
When you do a background check on a person for a sensitive
position, you do not have to have enough evidence to indict
them before you say we are just not too sure we ought to hire
this person? Are we miscommunicating here somewhere, Mr. Abell?
Do you see the point I am trying to make?
Mr. Abell. I do, and perhaps I did not use the term in the
same sense that you would, sir, as a former prosecutor. If the
FBI advises or the Department of Justice advises the Department
of Defense that this is not an organization that we ought to
accept, then we would not, whether that is added to the list of
terrorist organizations or some other sort of lesser
classification.
Senator Sessions. Okay. Thank you. I am sorry, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Kyl. We are not sticking exactly to the 5-minute
rule, but give or take a few minutes, and so I appreciate that
very much.
Senator Schumer?
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I did want to take the indulgence of the Committee
to announce that I have two guests here today. They are my
parents. They are in the audience. I cannot see them, but I
have been told they are here. They are here with their bridge
club from New York. Hi, Mom, hi, Dad, wherever you are.
Chairman Kyl. Could we recognize you to stand, please? It
is not often that the parents of a Senator--well, thank you.
[Applause.]
Chairman Kyl. This will not count toward your time, Senator
Schumer, but we could not even get two seats together. It is
just like on the airplane.
Senator Schumer. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to say that I am heartened by what we have
heard here today because, as you know, this has been a concern
of mine in both the Bureau of Prisons and the military for a
while. But I would like to get some details. There are two
aspects here: one is outreach, and one is dealing with groups
that should not be inside.
In terms of outreach, I think you said, Mr. Abell, that the
armed forces were going to make an effort to reach out to other
Muslim groups. We have hundreds and hundreds of Christian
chaplains of different denominations, and that is great. And
somehow it seems that at least the people--we do not exactly
know--I do not think anyone has interviewed the ten Muslim
chaplains that are in the--are there ten in the Bureau of
Prisons?
Mr. Lappin. Ten in the Bureau of Prisons.
Senator Schumer. Or I don't know how many there are in
the--
Mr. Abell. Twelve, Senator.
Senator Schumer. Twelve in the armed forces, if they have
any kind of diversity, but the groups that are filtering them
through may not. Can you just outline what your outreach is
going to be? And are you going to look particularly for Sufi
and Shia and Sunni Muslim groups? Some of whom after I got
involved in this contacted my office on their own and said they
would be interested in this kind of thing.
Mr. Abell. Senator, from the Department of Defense
perspective, we are going to--we are, in fact, have already
begun looking for organizations that would meet the criteria
who could be sponsoring or endorsing organizations, without
regard to the particular sect. We had not targeted in any way
one sect or another or even--
Senator Schumer. And it seems--and this may be true of
prisons as well. It seems you just sort of--these two groups--
how did it come to be that these two groups became the only two
groups that were involved? Is it that they were the only ones
that came forward and the knowledge of Islam in America was
such that nobody said, well, just as we know for sure there are
Baptists, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and those are
different forms of Christianity, that we sort of did not know
that there were different forms of Islam and that only--what
happened here? These two groups, did you approach them, BOP and
military, or did they approach you and you said, well, if you
are 501(c)(3) you are fine and you will go through those other
checks? Mr. Abell first, and then Mr. Lappin.
Mr. Abell. In the case of the Department of Defense, these
are the only two groups who have come to us and asked to be
recognized.
Senator Schumer. They came forward?
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Senator Schumer. And it would sort of make sense that those
who had the most passion about this or who might have another
agenda would come forward, where others might not.
Mr. Abell. Again, one of the things that is required of
being a chaplain in the military is that the individual has to
personally certify that they are pluralistic--
Senator Schumer. I understand.
Mr. Abell. --that they support the--
Senator Schumer. Free exercise of religion, in other words,
which is good, although, again, we have had instances where
that has not happened. At least we know of those in some
instances.
Mr. Lappin. Yes, sir, we do not, again, go out and search
out organizations or agencies to bring us candidates.
Candidates come to us. They then bring with them an endorsing
agency. My assumption is--we have had some of our chaplains for
as many as 16 years, and in the 1980's and early 1990's, there
were not that many Islamic organizations of a national level
that could provide endorsement. So that is in part why we
probably have more from ISNA than others.
Senator Schumer. Well, it sort of happened sort of by both
accident and not total familiarity with the Islam religion.
Mr. Lappin. Yes, and we got to know them relatively well.
We have gone out and done training with ISNA. They participated
in our training. So we educated ourselves somewhat on a number
of the endorsing agencies by our relationship with them beyond
just the endorsing.
Senator Schumer. Now, let me ask a second question. I take
it it has become clear--and I know Senator Kyl alluded to
this--that your criteria for including somebody are really not
sufficient any longer, that just to have a 501(c)(3) and go
through a routine background check is not enough, and you are
going to--this is in terms of excluding groups that shouldn't
be, not including groups that should be. Is that fair? I see
both witnesses nodding their heads, but could they verbalize it
so the recorder could get that down?
Mr. Abell. Yes, Senator. We are going to continue our study
of this until we can find a way that would hopefully avoid
situations--
Senator Schumer. And it is a difficult area because you
want to have freedom of religion. I think Mr. Pistole even
talked about the different meanings of the word ``jihad.''
There can be a religious type of jihad, which is all a thought
process, which is protected by the First Amendment, and then we
know there can be an action form of jihad, which is criminal
and immoral and inhumane and everything else.
The same with you, Mr. Lappin?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, sir, I would agree. We are going to do
everything--we are going to remain vigilant and exploring as
much as we can about endorsing agencies. We will be working--
Senator Schumer. But both of you admit that the existing
criteria were not good enough, in retrospect.
Mr. Lappin. Yes.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Senator Schumer. Okay. Next question. This really does
concern me, the fact that a military chaplain led this
delegation of soldiers on a trip to Saudi Arabia in 2001 that
was sponsored by the Muslim World League, which, again, the
CIA--that is an official Saudi organization, but the CIA has
said it is a front for Al-Qaeda. What do you know about this,
Mr. Abell? What is going on that you can tell us, given the
constraints that the Chairman, of course, correctly mentioned
that we do not want to interfere with an ongoing investigation?
But this knocked my socks off. I was surprised it did not get
more attention than it did. Could you tell us what you can
about that?
Mr. Abell. What I do know--
Senator Schumer. It also says to me something is going on
here. How did this chaplain get connected with the Muslim World
League? Maybe it is innocent, maybe it is not, but it certainly
ought to be looked into.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. I do not know how this chaplain was
connected with this organization. As for the service members
who went, they asked for and were granted their ordinary leave.
They were on leave status and thus able to travel as U.S.
citizens without any further scrutiny by their commands or the
military service. So I think what we knew about that at the
time was almost nothing as an institution, as the Department of
Defense or as the military service. The interesting--
Senator Schumer. What does it make you think now?
Mr. Abell. Well, as I was about to say, the interesting
question becomes the connection of the chaplain to the
organization. I do not believe we would get to the point where
we would ask our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to tell
us what they wanted to do on their leave. So we may have
instances where a service member goes on leave and--
Senator Schumer. Well, are you going to question the
chaplain and ask him how he got connected with this
organization? Are you going to find out--
Mr. Abell. I think that is the interesting question, yes,
sir.
Senator Schumer. Are you going to find out if these people
just on their own, the members of the armed forces said, gee, I
would like to go on a haj or it was suggested by this chaplain?
Were there other chaplains suggesting it as well? Don't you
think these are all relevant questions that we ought to know
the answers to?
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. I wanted to try and separate the
activities of the 50, 60 individuals with that of the--
Senator Schumer. Who have a perfect right to go, obviously.
Okay. I understand that.
Finally, as you know, I have written both of your agencies
for a while. Mr. Lappin, you are new on the job so you get
exoneration here. I don't know long you have been there, Mr.
Abell.
Senator Feinstein. Long enough.
Senator Schumer. Long enough, says Senator Feinstein. But
why has it been that--you know, I do not expect the answers the
next day, but I have really encountered very little cooperation
in answers from both the military and the Bureau of Prisons in
the letters I have written, in the concerns I have brought up
here. And when I brought these up, maybe it was not as
prominent as now, but we have had new instances of things
coming up that are very, very troubling. What is going on? And
can I find a liaison who my staff can call and get questions
answered that either aren't classified or aren't concerning an
ongoing investigation?
Mr. Abell. Obviously, the answer to the latter question is
yes. Let me--
Senator Schumer. Who might that be?
Mr. Abell. I am sure the Department would suggest that
Secretary Moore would be your point of entry.
Senator Schumer. I do not need someone that high up. I just
need someone who knows the answers.
Mr. Abell. But I am sure that our Inspector General, Mr.
Schmitz, would come see you as well and be happy to talk to
you.
Senator Schumer. Okay. Well, if you could just get me the
name of a liaison, and day to day when we find out these
things, we always want to check them out and be careful with
them.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Senator Schumer. How about you, Mr. Lappin?
Mr. Lappin. I apologize it has taken so long, sir. I will
check into it. I understand the letter was sent to the IG. We
will follow up with them today or tomorrow and try and get you
a response as quickly as possible.
Senator Schumer. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you, Senator Schumer.
Senator Durbin, before I call on you, could I ask your
indulgence for just two quick things?
First of all, I think it is a good idea to have Secretary
Schmitz come to us. What I would like to arrange is for a
private briefing of the Committee because there could be both
classified and ongoing investigation matters, given his
position, but I think that would be a very useful thing for our
Committee.
Senator Schumer. A great idea, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kyl. And with your suggestion, Mr. Abell, we will
contact Mr. Schmitz for that purpose.
Secondly--and, again, Senator Durbin, might I ask your
indulgence? Senator Schumer asked a question of you, Mr. Abell,
about whether you were aware of any other organizations that
sought to be recognized by the Department of Defense for the
purpose of denominating military chaplains. I just quote from a
news magazine article and ask this question. This is from the
October 27th issue of National Review in an article by Kate
O'Byrne, and I will read the paragraph on page 32:
``A moderate Muslim organization aligned with Shiite Islam
also claims to have been ignored by the Defense Department. The
Universal Muslim Association of America has tried
unsuccessfully to be approved to certify Muslim clerics. Its
spokesman explains, `The Defense Department should be aware
that there are two main forms of Islam, Sunni and Shiite, and
that it was only Wahhabism that is being represented.'''
Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Abell. Senator, I read Ms. O'Byrne's article this
morning about 8 o'clock, and so I have had no opportunity to
look into those statements. I do not necessarily agree with
everything that I read in that article, but certainly we will
check out whether or not we have ignored one or more--
Chairman Kyl. That is an allegation that would be
inconsistent with what you said.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Chairman Kyl. So you will get back to us with your
response.
Mr. Abell. Absolutely.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you, Senator Durbin. You have the
floor.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Not being a member
of this Committee, I am attending more of your sessions more
often because, frankly, you have very important issues and very
relevant to our discussion about the war on terrorism. And I
wanted to also greet Mr. and Mrs. Schumer and tell you that
your son, whom I have lived with for 11 years, is a great
roommate. So you raised him well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Schumer. Don't tell them about my neatness habits.
Senator Durbin. No, I will not talk about that.
It strikes me that when we talk about this issue in its
obvious extreme, it is easy. When there are people who are
seeking to be chaplains or religious counselors who have a
criminal record or espouse violence, who collect information
and use it against our Government, these are the clear cases.
What worries me, though, is when we start setting standards
for acceptable chaplains and acceptable religions, I think we
get into a very difficult area. If I read correctly your Code
of Ethics, the American Correctional Chaplains Association--I
do not know if you have all assumed that that guides your
decisions or is part of your decisions. Have you had instances
in the past where certain religious groups have been excluded
even though there is no clear evidence that the person asking
to be a chaplain has anything in his or her background that
would disqualify them? Mr. Lappin?
Mr. Lappin. Not to my knowledge, but we can certainly check
on that. Again, we have 231 chaplains, and we scrutinize all of
those applications very closely. But, again, not to my
knowledge that we have excluded anyone.
Senator Durbin. If I understand the standards, it is
basically a certain level of education and certification by
their religion, and then you look to their personal resumes to
see if there is anything. But I worry about what is surfacing
now. Senator Sessions made reference to what some people are
calling religion. In my home State, there is something called
the World Church of the Creator, which is under investigation
and indictment, and they claim to be a religion. But they
espouse violence; they are anti-Semitic; they are racist. And I
was just curious as to what the process would be if someone
said, ``I am a minister of this church and would like to be a
chaplain in a Federal prison,'' and some prisoners said, ``Yes,
we would like to have such a person as chaplain,'' How does
that work?
Mr. Lappin. Well, typically, this begins from the inmates.
Typically, inmates will come in and say, ``I am a member of
this church or practice this religion,'' and we do a thorough
investigation before we determine that that, in fact, is a
religion that we would recognize in the prison setting. So,
typically, it comes from the other direction, but we have a
process by which we make that assessment and determine that.
Senator Durbin. What is the standard for whether you would
recognize--you said that you would recognize in a prison
setting. What I am trying to get to is the hard part of this
question. Can you, will you draw a line and say this is either
not a religion or is a religion that we find unacceptable to
minister to inmates?
Mr. Lappin. Yes, we would. I believe we would, and we can
provide to you how we determine what is a religion as it
pertains to requests from inmates that might lend you an idea
of how we make that assessment.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Abell, could you address that as well
in terms of how you would deal with this concept of defining
religions and ruling certain religions unacceptable?
Mr. Abell. Senator, this is the precise reason that a year
ago we began to look at how we deal with endorsing agencies,
and as I explained--maybe before you arrived--there was a point
at which the Department approved religions, if you will, and
that was a thing I was trying to get away from, couldn't find a
core competency in the Department of Defense to approve a
religion.
We have had a number of religions that have come forward to
us that wanted to provide chaplains whose practices were not,
in my personal view, anyway, consistent with good order and
discipline within the military services. Those religions have
not yet made it through the process, either the IRS process or
the old Department of Defense process where they would be
recognized. Were they, there is a second test, which is: Do the
services need them, much like his population, only this would--
in the Department of Defense this is usually a determination at
the service level. It may have bubbled up from the deck plates,
if you will, but the service would determine whether it needed
a chaplain from that particular religion or not based on what
it knew about the members within its service. But it is very
difficult, but we do hold the standard of good order and
discipline as well.
Senator Durbin. Have you been challenged in any of these
decisions by these religions in court as to whether or not you
could exclude them?
Mr. Abell. In the history of the Department, I do not know.
Lately, not yet. We certainly would anticipate that will come.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Lappin, do you recall any challenges?
Mr. Lappin. I know we have been challenged by inmates when
we determine that their religion is not one that we would
recognize.
Senator Durbin. And has there been a court determination on
any of these decisions?
Mr. Lappin. I am not sure, but we can certainly check into
that and provide you what we know.
Senator Durbin. If you would.
Mr. Chairman, I think that some of these are fairly
obvious. If you are dealing with a minister, someone who has a
questionable background, or a religion which clearly espouses
violence and terrorism, I think these are all fairly easy
calls. But there is a very difficult gray area here in terms of
what is an acceptable religion in a country that tries to
embrace diversity. And I applaud you for your efforts to try to
draw that line. I think it is increasingly difficult.
Thank you.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin.
If there are no other questions from the dais here, I would
like to thank our panelists. Obviously, this is an ongoing
matter, both for us and for you. We will be interested in
getting further reports about the evolution, particularly, Mr.
Abell, of the Department of Defense's program here and would
hope that you would provide that to us in writing from time to
time or as it is appropriate. We will follow through on the
other matters that I indicated. We will keep the record open
until the end of this week for any other additional comments
you would have or any questions that members of the panel might
have.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would just follow up with
a written question, but I am curious about what if a chaplain
celebrates those who attacked on 9/11 as martyrs or a chaplain
that not only is himself a pacifist but actually preaches to
soldiers they should also be pacifist. I would like to hear
your position in the Department of Defense. You do not need to
take that time now, but how you deal with that, because I think
some of the messages can also be against the good order and
discipline of the service. We just do not need to be too timid
about this. I do not think we need to be timid about who we pay
in our prisons and our military.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and you can get
that information to us in writing, obviously.
Thank you all for being here.
Chairman Kyl. Now I would like to invite our second group
of panelists forward for what I know is going to be some very
interesting testimony. There are two panelists but a third
member will be joining us at the table.
The first panelist is Dr. Michael Waller. Dr. Michael
Waller is testifying in his capacity as the Annenberg Professor
of International Communication at the Institute of World
Politics, a graduate school of statecraft and national security
in Washington, where he teaches courses on propaganda and
political warfare. As a journalist and author, Dr. Waller has
written about terrorism and political warfare for 20 years and
conducted a pioneering study published in 1991 of the U.S.-
based political and fundraising networks of international
guerrilla and terrorist groups. He has been working with the
Center for Security Policy on tracking Islamist terrorist
groups and their domestic political networks in the United
States, and his testimony today will place the issue of the
Islamist prison and military chaplain recruitment into a larger
context. He is testifying as an expert witness on the political
warfare operations of terrorist organizations and not on Islam,
I would make it very clear.
Chaplain Paul E. Rogers is president of the American
Correctional Chaplains Association, which represents over 450
Federal and State prison chaplains around the country. Mr.
Rogers is a former chaplain in the U.S. Air Force and has been
Archdiocese of Milwaukee representative to the Christian-
Islamic Dialogue for 10 years. He has been employed by the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections since 1989. And Chaplain
Rogers is accompanied by Chaplain A.J. Sabree--I hope I am
pronouncing that correctly, sir--the treasurer of the American
Correctional Chaplains Association and the former Chair of the
American Correctional Chaplains Association Certification
Committee. Mr. Sabree, a Muslim imam, is assistant director of
chaplaincy services at the Georgia Department of Corrections
and supervises chaplains at 104 facilities throughout Georgia.
He has been with the department since 1975, is based in
Atlanta, has 28 years of experience as a clinical chaplain,
including 15 years in his current position, and is based in
Atlanta.
Thank you, all three of you, for being here. Dr. Waller,
the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WALLER, ANNENBERG PROFESSOR OF
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION, INSTITUTE OF WORLD POLITICS,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Waller. Thank you, Chairman Kyl and members of the
Subcommittee, for having this hearing and for inviting me to
testify on sort of connecting the dots about how the chaplains
issue connects with the larger foreign-funded efforts to
penetrate our society on behalf of people who wish us ill.
I have a very lengthy prepared statement, which I will
leave for the record, but what I would like to do is to scan
over it in the time I am allowed. My written testimony
discusses the foreign entities and individuals who created the
Muslim Chaplain Corps for the United States military, the
parties responsible for nominating and vetting them, the issue
of state-sponsored penetration of the U.S. military and
prisons, challenges to our ability to understand the nature of
the problem, and the larger context of which the chaplain
program is part.
In short, this is what my colleagues and I have found over
the past two and a half years: first, foreign states and
movements have been financing the promotion of radical,
political Islam, which we call Islamism, within America's armed
forces and prisons. It is fundamentally a political movement
with a lot of religious overtones. It seeks political power and
it demands a radical change in our legal system and, in fact,
in our Constitution. That alien ideology preaches intolerance
and hatred of our society and our culture and the principles
enshrined in our Constitution, and adherents to the ideology
directly and indirectly spawn, train, finance, supply, and
mobilize terrorists who would destroy our system of Government
and our way of life.
They have created civil support networks for terrorists at
home and abroad, many of which operate entirely legally,
providing material assistance, fundraising operations,
logistics, propaganda, legal services in the event of arrest or
imprisonment, and bringing political pressure to bear on
policymakers and opinion leaders grappling with
counterterrorism issues.
As a society, we have not understood the problem. I think
part of the reason is that some of our leaders, particularly in
the FBI and elsewhere, have not wanted to forthrightly confront
the issue. It was noted that someone did a content analysis of
the FBI Director's speeches and could not find where they had
``Islam'' and ``terrorism'' in the same sentence. The FBI has
repeatedly come to hearings of this Subcommittee and not given
straight answers, not even discussed, as in the June 26th
hearing, the issue of the hearing. So we have done a disservice
in terms of public understanding.
This also comes on attempts by supporters of some of these
terrorist groups to stifle debate. Our research also shows that
the most virulent of the denunciations of the anti-terrorism
processes and the critics of these movements and these hearings
have come from groups that themselves are tied to or funded by
foreign Wahhabi entities, including the Muslim Brotherhood, by
the way. As we will see, a reported Muslim Brotherhood member
was arrested a couple of weeks ago, Abdurahman Alamoudi. He
built the political pressure groups in Washington, the main
ones, on a lot of Muslim issues, the radical Muslim issues, and
he also created the Muslim Chaplain Corps in the U.S. military.
We have to keep this in the larger context. This is part of
40 years, spans 40 years of Wahhabi political warfare as an
element of international religious proselytizing and, some
would argue, political warfare of which religious proselytizing
is an element. And the strategic goal is twofold: to dominate
the voice of Islam around the world, and to exert control over
civil and political institutions around the world through a
combination of infiltration, aggressive political warfare,
charitable programs, and violence. And we see this happening
globally--Pakistan, Egypt, United Kingdom, continental Europe,
in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Kosovo, Russia, Turkey, Southeast
Asia, parts of Africa and Latin America, and here, too.
To connect the dots, unlike our past adversaries, this
terrorist enemy is often organized horizontally. We are used to
dealing with vertical hierarchies so you can round them up just
by following the hierarchy up to a central command and control.
With some of the entities we are talking about, there is indeed
a central command and control. But with others, it is networks
so that even if you remove the leaders of those networks, the
networks still flourish. They operate autonomously. They
operate among themselves. Some have different ideologies, but
they do cooperate with one another. They make common cause with
one another, and this challenges previous intelligence
assumptions that certain groups of Muslims, for example, would
not collaborate with other types of Muslims, or even non-
observant Muslims.
The vertical structures include the so-called Wahhabi lobby
here. This is a loose term to describe mainly Saudi and other
foreign-funded groups, funded by Saudi Arabia, funded by Qatar,
and other Wahhabi sources to promote these movements in the
United States.
Now, what I am talking about is all from open sources, and
it is sort of extraordinary that the FBI cannot offer straight
testimony on this. But what we have found are two components
for this campaign. The first is operational, and it includes
fundraising, logistics, material support, infiltration,
training, indoctrination, intelligence collection,
counterintelligence, security, and legal support for terrorist-
oriented organizations. The second is political: grass-roots
organizing, ideological and political mobilization, and a
Washington political presence to show national voices, to
change the U.S. laws, to provide a mainstream face for their
extreme agenda, and to attack their critics.
In the words of an Al-Qaeda operative, Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, in the June 23rd Newsweek, Al-Qaeda has chosen to use
``mosques, prisons, and universities throughout the United
States'' to foil heightened security measures across the
American heartland and to recruit people who don't fit the
terror profile so that they can more actively promote the
agenda of Al-Qaeda or the interests of other organizations, the
organizations of those groups.
I see by the light I have run out of time, so I will
reserve my other comments for later.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waller appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. Well, thank you. I want to thank you for your
written testimony, which is extraordinarily complete, and we
appreciate that very much and we will have some questions after
a moment.
I hesitate to say ``Mr. Rogers.'' ``Chaplain'' would be a
better way to refer to you, and I do that, sir. Thank you for
being here.
STATEMENT OF PAUL E. ROGERS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL
CHAPLAINS ASSOCIATION, WAUPUN, WISCONSIN; ACCOMPANIED BY A.J.
SABREE, TREASURER, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL CHAPLAINS ASSOCIATION,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kyl, Subcommittee
members, thank you for this opportunity to be here. I am Paul
Rogers, president of the American Correctional Chaplains
Association and staff chaplain at Dodge Correctional
Institution in Wisconsin. I have with me here today Imam A.J.
Sabree, treasurer of the ACCA, the keeper of the checkbook. We
trust him. And, of course, he is also the past Chair of the
ACCA Certification Committee and assistant manager of
chaplaincy services for the Georgia Department of Corrections.
I would also like to direct your attention to the letter
for the record of this Committee that has been separately
submitted by Chaplain Gary Friedman, Chairman of the Jewish
Prisoner Services International and our ACCA Communications
Committee Chair.
The American Correctional Chaplains Association represents
correctional chaplains across the country from all different
faith groups. In 1886, we were the first professional affiliate
of the American Correctional Association. We share in the
mission of protecting society by safely securing and hopefully
rehabilitating inmates.
Let me begin by stating that the vast majority of
chaplains, including Islamic chaplains, support the goal of
providing homeland and national security.
With over 2 million men and women incarcerated across the
country, terrorist recruitment in prisons and jails is indeed a
potentially serious concern for our country. The religious
climate in prisons today reflects that of our society with some
very important distinctions. The religious diversity found
across the United States is indeed seen in these prisons. We
have well-known, mainstream religious represented in our prison
populations, but we also encounter the lesser-known minority
faith groups. We come in close contact with representatives of
all these faith groups and religions.
A distinction to be made is that since prison society is
lived in a closed community, we see firsthand how these faiths
respond to members who are in prison. We know our local faith
communities and their leaders and consult them to meet
religious requirements of their members. Equity demands that we
treat all religions fairly. It may be because of prisons being
isolated and closed communities that minority faith groups may
appear more prominent in the general prison population than
they do in the rest of society. Another reason is that racial
minorities are found in prison at a greater percentage so that
those racial minorities with a particular faith have greater
numbers in prison.
Religious programs in prisons are very active. Professional
staff chaplains administer programs to respond to the religious
needs of all inmates. Of civilians who choose to participate in
various prison activities, the vast majority are religion
program volunteers. While this may be true in most
jurisdictions, there are areas of the country where those
religious needs, or even rights, may be ignored or unmet due to
lack of resources, distance from religious service providers,
and poor administration. It is when inmates feel that they are
not being treated fairly that disturbances may occur. Not all
inmates may seek administrative or judicial relief to address
perceived wrongs. This is one of the reasons why having a
professional correctional chaplain is essential to good
correctional management.
Regarding reports of prisons being infiltrated by
terrorists or terrorist organizations via prison religious
programs, I think these have been blown out of proportion. Yes,
some relatively minor situations have been identified, but they
were stopped before escalating to dangerous levels.
Nonetheless, what should concern us are conditions that allow
these kinds of things to happen.
Unqualified chaplains and/or inadequate supervision of
programs and volunteers allow opportunities for abuse of
religious programs. When these conditions are present, you have
the potential for problems. The most effective way to counter
such conditions is to employ certified correctional chaplains
to administer religious programs. Why is this not being
universally done?
There are 50 States, the Federal prison system, and
thousands of regional, county, and local jurisdictions, all
with differing ideas on what chaplaincy is and a variety of job
requirements for chaplains. The American Correctional
Association has clear standards for what is required of a
chaplain.
What is a correctional chaplain? Much like our colleagues
in the military and at hospitals, correctional chaplains
provide pastoral care to those who are disconnected from the
general community by certain circumstances--in this case to
those who are imprisoned, as well as to the correctional
facility staff and their families when requested. Each
correctional chaplain is also a representative of his or her
faith community and is required to be endorsed by their
denominational body in order to qualify as a chaplain.
Correctional chaplains are professionals, with specialized
training in the unique dynamics of the corrections world.
Professional chaplains also agree to abide by the ACCA Code
of Ethics. Several departments of corrections across the
country already subscribe to this Code of Ethics. For example,
the New York City Department of Corrections recently adopted it
for their own chaplains.
Let me say this concerning some recent issues here with
chaplains. If you had a member following this code under
Competency, Article 7, members exercise their ministry without
influencing prisoners or staff to change their religious
preference or faith. Members conduct their ministry without
communicating derogative attitudes towards other faiths.
Another difficulty in having qualified correctional
chaplains is that many States are experiencing serious budget
deficits and have been eliminating or cutting back on their
chaplains or replacing them with volunteers. If this were such
a great idea, we wonder why this approach is not used in the
legal departments. Having volunteer lawyers from the community
would save many departments of corrections much money.
By having unqualified volunteers operate in prisons without
proper supervision can possibly lead to terrorist infiltration.
A good correctional chaplain is familiar with the faith groups
and volunteers within the community, even minority faith
groups. It is this personal knowledge of community religious
resources which is of benefit not only to inmates but the
institution as well. Additionally, properly trained chaplains
can distinguish between things that may be done in houses of
worship in the community, but are not appropriate in a
correctional setting. If a correctional chaplain observes or
witnesses anything in a worship service or a religious study
that in any way appears to be a threat to the institution, he
or she is obligated to report it. Unfortunately, however, this
is not the case in facilities that utilize unqualified
chaplains or volunteers to oversee their programs.
Finally, to fight terrorism, we must all be vigilant
against our enemies wherever they might be. We professional
chaplains can assist this cause by being an effective partner
with all jurisdictions.
The American Correctional Chaplains Association has already
proven its ability to support the correctional needs with its
longstanding affiliation with the American Correctional
Association. The American Correctional Chaplains Association
now stands ready to further help by promoting the certification
of all chaplains in prisons across the United States.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Chaplain Rogers.
Let me begin with a couple of questions, and, Professor
Waller, I would like to ask you two related questions. As
Senator Sessions noted earlier, our freedom of religion is
constitutionally protected. We take it very seriously in our
country. How do you propose in view of that that the U.S.
Government approach this matter of radical Islam as a national
security threat? And as a related matter, how do you respond to
those who would say that even expressing this concern indicates
some kind of prejudice against Muslims generally?
Mr. Waller. This is a very touchy subject, but in sum, we
are not looking at this as a religious problem. It is a
national security problem. It is a political movement. Anytime
you have a movement that talks about overthrowing the
Constitution of the United States in the case of a lot of the
Islamists and Wahhabis, it is ultimately to see the United
States governed under sharia law. That steps from the religious
to the political and certainly from protected First Amendment
rights to something involving, you know, crying out for
national security attention.
Secondly, these groups have become very active in the
political process using their religious name as a mantle for
their political operations, for example, here in Washington,
but have fundamentally political agendas here which are, in the
cases of, say, the American Muslim Council and others,
weakening U.S. counterterrorism laws, certainly the 1996 Anti-
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and other things
where they are trying to work in the mainstream to convince
lawmakers to weaken counterterrorism laws to the advantage of
their own operatives. So this is where you bridge from the
purely religious to the political, and I think if it is
approached in that respect, one can press forward and try to
solve the problem.
The other thing with people using the racism and bigotry
argument, as we have encountered a lot, is that they are trying
to silence debate on this. You see the groups in Washington,
the Council on American-Islamic Relations, American Muslim
Council, and others, are the lead ones crying racism and
bigotry anytime an issue is brought up concerning the things we
are talking about today. Certainly the founder of a lot of
these groups, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was just arrested 2
weeks ago on charges of smuggling Libyan money, financing
terrorism, and using foreign money to fund his political
operations here, was one of those who was saying that the
arrest of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and the trials
was racist and bigoted and that the arrest of other really
hard-core terrorism cases was just proof of American's racism.
So you really cannot put much stock into people who don't
discuss this on the issues.
Chairman Kyl. Do you personally draw the distinction that
was made earlier with the first panel involving what somebody
labeled the mainstream Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam, do
you draw the distinction that was drawn earlier between those
two very large representations of Islam and the group that you
would refer to as the Wahhabists or the Islamists?
Mr. Waller. Well, the Wahhabists are a part of the Sunni
denomination of Islam, but you have--a lot of the groups that
operate here under Saudi funding or guidance or whatever, the
individuals who lead them are not even by their own admission
observant Muslims, yet they will come to this panel or
elsewhere to say how Muslim rights are being violated, or
whatever else. So it is kind of like, say, Catholics for a Free
Choice, which no Catholic bishop would ever say is a Catholic
organization, but the organizers have an agenda that they want
to push so they use that label.
The Irish Republican Army, the Provisional Irish Republican
Army used that label as well, calling itself a Catholic
organization, when, of course, the Catholic Bishop of Dublin
condemned it as a terrorist group. So you have a lot of groups,
again, using religion for their own purposes. And then some, in
the case of the Wahhabis, wanting to dominate the voice of
Islam and basically control the Islamic faith, not only in
other countries but here as well.
Chairman Kyl. Chaplain Rogers, time is short. Just one
quick question. You mentioned the potential problem of contract
or volunteer chaplains, not being able to vet those as well. I
presume that you are referring to a potential problem and not
specific cases. But do you know of any situations where there
may be a problem involving terrorism or radical preaching
involved in the volunteer or contract chaplains that you
mentioned?
Mr. Rogers. My experience in Wisconsin, and maybe similar
to other chaplains, where you have someone contracted in that
may misspeak inappropriately in a worship service in an
institution, bringing in materials and content that may rile up
inmates, and they would have to be counseled, or sometimes they
will be--they are statused to be removed as a service provider.
But as far as specific kind of recruiting potential terrorists
using the natural discontent some inmates have, we don't see
that, I think, across the country. I think there are certain
pockets, but there is more of a problem with, let's say, the
States or the people who are responsible to oversee the program
aren't trained, aren't qualified.
Chairman Kyl. So the vetting process is a very important
part of this entire process of selecting chaplains.
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein?
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sabree, you are a chaplain? Is that right?
Mr. Sabree. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. And could you tell me where you are
assigned and practice?
Mr. Sabree. I am assistant manager of chaplaincy for the
Georgia Department of Corrections. I have been assistant
manager, also acting director, since 1988. Prior to that I
served as clinical chaplain at the State's maximum security
prison in Reidsville, Georgia.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask you
this question as someone who is an Islamic chaplain. I think
you know about the kind of militant tilt that some have given
to Islam, which is not the real Islam--shahid, jihad, a change
of concepts for the purposes of really inciting violence, for
practicing hate, for turning an inner struggle into an outer
war. How would you advise us to beware of this? How would you
advise us to be able to prevent this from happening?
Mr. Waller is not the only one, and I do a lot of open-
source reading. I think there is no question but that there is
an attempt to penetrate universities and prisons to develop
recruitment for militant causes. With respect to the
chaplaincy, how would you advise us to try to see that that
does not get established inside Federal prisons, inside the
Department of Defense detention facilities?
Mr. Sabree. I think that trying to maintain certain
competencies, certain standards is very important, I think also
getting information from reliable Islamic sources. The
community I belong to under the leadership of W. Dean Mohammed
is actually the largest Islamic community in America and is
made up primarily of indigenous Muslims here.
Senator Feinstein. Is it Shiite?
Mr. Sabree. No. It is Sunni, it is Muslim. It is not under
the Shiite banner, but you would basically Sunni Muslim. But
for Muslims, we regard all Muslims as ones that follow the
Sumna. Basically, when you look at some of the issues that I
have been listening to in terms of endorsement, those in the
military, I know personally some of these people. Abdul Rashid,
for instance, the first military chaplain, was a member of our
community. But in order to get endorsement or get into the
military chaplaincy, he had to get endorsement by the only
recognized Islamic body at that time by the military, which was
the American Muslim Council, even though he belonged to another
group of Muslims.
And I think in terms of you have to look systematically,
Islam is relatively new in America, and you don't have the
educational institutions established in terms of seminaries and
theological schools that allow people to have that history in
terms of being educationally qualified for some of those
positions. So that kind of pushes them towards those
facilities, those institutions that do have those resources,
and a lot of those resources are foreign-funded. And you are
talking about people that do not have access to intelligence
information.
If you have got such a distinguished panel here that was
before us and the Senate Committee can't say who is funding
these organizations, how can you expect a lone chaplain to know
what was behind some of the funding of some of these groups
that may have given them access to make haj, which is a
fundamental principle in the religion? Prior to 9/11, September
11th, nobody viewed Saudi Arabia as a threat to the U.S. In
fact, they were our allies in the first Gulf War. And to go
back in time and say prior to 9/11 somebody who received some
assistance to make a haj connects them to terrorists I think is
basically an error in judgment. And I think that we have to
continue to try to ensure that minimum qualifications and
associations like the American Correctional Association, which
I have been a member of for over 15 years, keeps pushing
professionalism of chaplains, and in those State jurisdictions
and Federal jurisdictions, you have oversight over people that
are hired in those positions.
And just in my position as a supervisor over chaplains in
Georgia, whenever we have any chaplain--because we can find
radicals in any religion.
Senator Feinstein. Right, right.
Mr. Sabree. And they can find themselves in positions,
sometimes. And we have to have oversight in terms of
monitoring. We have to have good supervision. We have to have
good training. We have to make sure that we are not negligent
in our entrustment, of what we entrust with people. We have to
make sure that we are not negligent in our retention once we do
find these things out. And I think that is what is needed in
terms of future prevention of allowing the professionalism to
go down to the point where you have all sorts of people having
access to a population that is sometimes already angry and mad
with the establishment. And that is where you begin to let
things grow in the wrong direction.
Senator Feinstein. Now, how would you ferret this out,
going in the wrong direction?
Mr. Sabree. Basically by maintaining continuing
supervision, continuing oversight in terms of what is actually
being given in terms of chaplaincies, duties and
responsibilities, and just really monitoring those activities.
Senator Feinstein. Do you believe that how the organization
is funded--you mentioned that because Islam is new in this
country, much of the financing comes from overseas. And, of
course, we know particularly with respect to militant Wahhabism
that a lot of that is funded by the Government of Saudi Arabia.
How would you weed out militant Wahhabism?
Mr. Sabree. By requiring that all chaplains are certified
by a larger body.
Senator Feinstein. A larger body than just the
organizations, the three that we mentioned today?
Mr. Sabree. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Do you have any thoughts on what the
larger body should be?
Mr. Sabree. Associations--take, for instance, the American
Correctional Chaplains Association has a certification process.
Different religious judicatories have endorsement, but
certification is an ongoing process that really helps the
person maintain professional standards and basically looks at
personal and professional competency in terms of continuing in
those lines of development.
Senator Feinstein. One quick last question. My staff just
showed me the Code of Ethics. Are you saying that the American
Correctional Chaplains Association really should be one of the
endorsing organizations that the Federal Government would use?
Mr. Rogers. It would be--can I speak?
Senator Feinstein. Of course.
Mr. Rogers. It would be the group that would be after
endorsement, generally. Sometimes the individual could be
certified possibly prior to endorsement, but just like hospital
chaplains, almost all hospital chaplains are certified. They
seem to have a very commonly understood national standard. I
don't know why we have the problem in corrections. I mentioned
there are so many different jurisdictions. If all the
jurisdictions said, well, we should have certified chaplains,
and we are the recognized national organization that does
certification for chaplains in the correctional setting. I
think that would assist a lot.
Senator Feinstein. I think that is very helpful.
Thank you both very much.
Chairman Kyl. Senator Durbin?
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Waller, is it fair to conclude that you do not
personally believe that all Muslims, people of the Islamic
faith, support terrorism and violence?
Mr. Waller. No, absolutely not. If it wasn't for a lot of
Muslims here, I wouldn't know--we wouldn't have learned a lot
of what we have learned.
What we found was a lot, especially Muslims who emigrated
here from the Middle East and other places, fled Wahhabism,
many of them. They came to the United States to build a normal
life. They go to their mosque here, and all of a sudden, they
find that it is being taken over by the Wahhabis. And then
they--
Senator Durbin. Would you also concede that some Muslims in
that category of innocence are unfairly discriminated against
because of our efforts to find the roots of terrorism?
Mr. Waller. Everybody is. I mean, I have been stopped at
the airport security eight of my last ten flights. Does that
mean I have been unfairly, you know, taken aside?
Senator Durbin. Join the crowd.
Mr. Waller. Yes. So everybody has. So the point is
everybody has to--
Senator Durbin. But you do not think particularly that
people of Muslim religion are being discriminated against, or
people of Arab background because of fears of terrorism in this
country?
Mr. Waller. I think some people feel that way. I think at
some levels, certainly at the FBI, they are sort of bending
over the opposite way to go out of their way not to.
Senator Durbin. Let's pursue that for a second. I have
several articles that you have written here for the Washington
Times and Insight magazine. One group that you have focused on
was the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom. You
have written a lengthy article about this coalition, and you
have identified some 15 different groups that are part of this
coalition. You say of this coalition: ``They have joined forces
in an attempt to cripple U.S. law enforcement and to facilitate
terrorist support activities inside the country.'' And one of
the groups that you identified as part of the coalition here is
a group called the American Muslim Council, and here is what
you said: ``The American Muslim Council and the American Muslim
Foundation share the same Washington offices, attempt to enter
the mainstream dialogue with Christians and Jews. In reality,
the group's key man, former executive director, current board
member, Abdurahman Alamoudi, publicly proclaimed in October
2000, `We are all supporters of Hamas. I am also a supporter of
Hezbollah.'''
And then in another article you make note of something
which I would like to point out for the record. In June of
2002, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Robert Mueller, a man whom I respect very much, from the San
Francisco area, who I think is doing a find job, you say that
he was under orders from the White House to speak to the
convention of this American Muslim Council, causing a rift and
division within the FBI.
Are you saying that the Director of the FBI spoke to a
convention of a group that is, as you describe them, joining
forces in an attempt to cripple U.S. law enforcement and to
facilitate terrorist support activities?
Mr. Waller. Director Mueller was under a lot of pressure
either to speak or not to speak at that council.
Senator Durbin. He spoke.
Mr. Waller. He did. And the FBI press office, amongst the
criticism of him speaking there, issued a statement saying that
the American Muslim Council is one of the most mainstream
Muslim groups in America today, which is completely fallacious.
The founder and head of the council and then the head of the
American Muslim Foundation--
Senator Durbin. Is under indictment.
Mr. Waller. He is under indictment now, but he has a long
public record of not only supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, but--
Senator Durbin. But can you explain--
Mr. Waller. --a variety--the group that tried to
assassinate--
Senator Durbin. Can you explain to me how the Director of
the FBI ended up speaking to the convention of the American
Muslim Council that you have identified as a terrorist
sympathizer group in America? How did this happen?
Mr. Waller. I think it because the FBI doesn't value open-
source intelligence. I think it is because there is a
bifurcation of the FBI between the agents on the ground and the
leadership here in Washington. I know for a fact that FBI
agents in the field were very upset and demoralized that their
Director was--
Senator Durbin. So you think Director Mueller made a
mistake in speaking to this group?
Mr. Waller. I think he made a big mistake.
Senator Durbin. And you believe he was doing this, as you
have written, under orders from a--let me get this. I want to
correctly quote you. ``Senior administration officials tell
Insight''--this is what you have written--``that FBI Director
Robert Mueller was under orders from an unnamed senior White
House campaign strategist to appease Muslim and Arab American
groups that have been complaining noisily that Federal
counterterrorism efforts are impinging on their civil rights.''
Who was that White House strategist?
Mr. Waller. I can't say who the strategist was, but I can
only say I stand by my statement.
Senator Durbin. You believe that someone in the White House
ordered FBI Director Mueller to speak to the American Muslim
Council convention in June of 2002 and that this group is at
least sympathetic if not supportive of terrorism?
Mr. Waller. It cuts both ways. Yes, it cuts through both
political parties, both this and the past administration--
Senator Durbin. No, no, no. Please stick to your party.
Please answer this question. Was he addressing a group--
Mr. Waller. He addressed a group--
Senator Durbin. --under orders from the White House that
you think is sympathetic to terrorism?
Mr. Waller. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Waller. But it goes both ways. It goes both
administrations, it goes both parties.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Chairman Kyl. Is there anything else you want to say? In
other words, we don't want to cut any witness off from
explaining an answer. I think that is an important question and
an important answer, and if there is anything else you would
like to add, go ahead and do it.
Mr. Waller. If I may, Senator Kyl, because Alamoudi is
really the crux of what we are talking about here. He emigrated
here in 1979. In the 1980's and up to 1990 he was executive
assistant to the president of the SAAR Foundation in Northern
Virginia. That is one of the main financers of these movements
we are talking about. Later found to have--to serve as a front
for international terrorist activity, and subsequently under
investigation by Operation Green Quest.
He founded the American Muslim Council in 1990 and the
American Muslim Foundation is in the same office building,
financed by the SAAR family. In the next year, 1991, he created
the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council,
which was talked about today, whose purpose is to certify
Muslim chaplains hired by the military.
In or about 1993, he had exerted political influence
because, like any administration, they want to expand their
electoral support and had somehow gotten close to people of
influence in the administration, who in 1993 certified his
organization as one of two vetted and endorsed Muslim
chaplains.
Meanwhile, he was vocal attacking arrests of terrorists,
including Mohammed Solome, who was arrested 10 days after the
first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. From 1993 to 1998,
the Pentagon retained Alamoudi on an unpaid basis to nominate
and vet Muslim chaplain candidates for the military.
In 1994, he was complaining that the judge was picking on
the 1993 World Trade Center bombers because of their religion.
He was openly defending Hamas over the years. He became a
naturalized--all this is before he became a U.S. citizen. He
had all this access. In 1996, he became a citizen, swearing to
uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. He
spoke out in response to the arrest of Hamas political leader
Mousa Abu Marzook. And he illustrated his two-track approach to
how he operates and how his organizations operate. Abroad it is
violence; here it is working through the system.
He said, ``I think if we are outside this country we can
say, `Oh, Allah, destroy America.' But once we are here, our
mission in this country is to change it.''
He protested Federal airline regulations concerning
terrorism security. In January 2001, he attended a conference
in Beirut with leaders of terrorist organizations, including
Al-Qaeda. Last year, he protested the arrest of convicted cop
killer Imam Jamal Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly H. Rap Brown, who
twice held a senior office position within his organization.
In fact, last June, to address a previous question, June of
2002, while the FBI Director was getting ready to speak at the
American Muslim Council conference, the AMC executive director,
Eric Bickers, was asked several times on Fox News and on MSNBC
if he would denounce Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic jihad by
name. He would not. He was asked to denounce Al-Qaeda by name.
He would not. And in one instance, I believe it was on Chris
Matthews, he called Al-Qaeda ``a resistance movement.'' This is
before the FBI Director spoke at the conference. This is the
executive director of the organization running the conference.
And then the FBI came out with a public statement calling the
AMC ``the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States.''
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word?
Chairman Kyl. Sure, Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. It is my understanding Mr. Alamoudi was not
with the American Muslim Council when the FBI Director spoke to
the group. Having said that, though, I find myself in a curious
position here defending Director Robert Mueller, and the reason
I raised this issue and made it part of this discussion is I
think we need to take care with the statements we make and the
witnesses we invite. Some of the things that have been said,
for instance, about Director Mueller relative to his appearance
before the American Muslim Council I think were out of line. I
think he is a patriotic American who works night and day to
keep this country safe and has reached out to the American
Muslim community to try to establish some sort of relationship
to help aid us in this war on terrorism.
Some of the writings of Mr. Waller would lead to the
opposite conclusion, and I think they are wrong. I am not of
the same party of Mr. Mueller, but I respect him greatly. I
think he is doing a fine job. And I think it really is a
caution to all of us to take care that when we start finding
those guilty of terrorism, we don't paint with such a wide
brush that we include Muslims and Muslim organizations, which
may include people who have no interest in terrorism
whatsoever. And I think some of the things Mr. Waller has
written have gone over that line.
Chairman Kyl. Well, I certainly share your sentiment that
Robert Mueller is a patriotic American and have a lot of
personal affection for him as well.
By the way, by way of clarification, was Alamoudi involved
with CAIR at the time that--
Senator Feinstein. AMC.
Chairman Kyl. Or I mean AMC at the time that the FBI
Director spoke? I don't know that you had said that he was, but
do you know whether he was?
Mr. Waller. He chaired the conference. He is on the board
of AMC, but he left the AMC a few years ago to be day-to-day
operations as head of the American Muslim Foundation, which is
the 501(c)(3) part of the AMC.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. But, anyway, he chaired the conference
at which the FBI Director spoke.
Mr. Waller. Yes, and the FBI indictment from a couple of
weeks ago said that even though he was not officially head of
the American Muslim Council, that the Federal authorities
believe that he still controls the organization.
This is part of the problem of dealing with certain groups
here, and it is never besmirching the Director's patriotism. It
is questioning his judgment and political wisdom, and those are
two--I draw a very strong distinction, because I am also an
admirer of the FBI Director. But I think there is a lot of
political pressure to prove that this is not a war on Islam,
and I think politicians from both parties are often too anxious
to get involved with or to speak before or otherwise legitimize
groups that they really haven't done the background check on.
And we criticized the Director at the time. I think it was the
correct thing to do. I think also, in retrospect, many in the
FBI believe the same because the FBI is being invited to these
organizations to speak again and they are no longer sending
representatives.
Chairman Kyl. Okay. Well, thank you very much to all the
members of this panel. I hope that we have cast some additional
light on the questions that we asked at the beginning. I think
we have, and I think there is a lot of follow-up that is going
to be done as well.
We will be having another hearing in this series. I cannot
announce the date right now, but I think in the next 2 or 3
weeks, look for another hearing of this Subcommittee on related
subjects.
I thank all of you for attending, and, again, thank you to
our witnesses.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
[Additional material is being retained in the Committee
files.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3254.059