[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IDENTIFYING THE ENEMY: RADICAL ISLAMIST TERROR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND
MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-88
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-270 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Chair Brian Higgins, New York
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Curt Clawson, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
John Katko, New York Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Will Hurd, Texas Norma J. Torres, California
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Georgia
Mark Walker, North Carolina
Barry Loudermilk, Georgia
Martha McSally, Arizona
John Ratcliffe, Texas
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan V. O'Hara, General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Curt Clawson, Florida Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Georgia Norma J. Torres, California
Barry Loudermilk, Georgia Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
Ryan Consaul, Subcommittee Staff Director
Kris Carlson, Subcommittee Clerk
Cedric C. Haynes, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency...................................... 1
The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Oversight and Management Efficiency:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
WITNESSES
Panel I
Mr. George Selim, Director, Office of Community Partnerships,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Panel II
Hon. Peter Hoekstra, Former Chairman, House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence:
Oral Statement................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 41
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, President, American Islamic Forum for
Democracy:
Oral Statement................................................. 45
Prepared Statement............................................. 47
Ms. Sahar F. Aziz, Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School
of Law:
Oral Statement................................................. 62
Prepared Statement............................................. 64
Ms. Shireen Qudosi, Senior Contributor, Counterjihad.com:
Oral Statement................................................. 78
Prepared Statement............................................. 80
FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency:
Article, Washington Post....................................... 3
Article, Middle East Briefing.................................. 4
Article, Middle East Briefing.................................. 6
Article, Gulf News Report...................................... 7
APPENDIX
Questions From Honorable Barry Loudermilk for George Selim....... 101
IDENTIFYING THE ENEMY: RADICAL ISLAMIST TERROR
----------
Thursday, September 22, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Management Efficiency,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Perry, Duncan, Clawson,
Loudermilk, Watson Coleman, Thompson, Torres, and Jackson Lee.
Also present: Representatives Meadows, Pascrell, and
Ellison.
Mr. Perry. Good morning. The Committee on Homeland
Security's Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency
will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to examine
the threat of radical Islamist terrorism and ways to defeat it.
The Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.
From Muhammed Abdulazeez in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Nidal
Hasan in Fort Hood, Texas to Syed Farook in San Bernardino,
California, radical Islamist terrorism is becoming more and
more frequent and devastating. According to the Committee on
Homeland Security's September 2016 terror threat snapshot,
since 2014 there have been 105 ISIS-linked plots to attack the
West, 30 of those in the United States.
In 2016 alone, 214 people have been murdered in terrorist
attacks against the West and just a few months ago, the
deadliest post-9/11 terror attack on American soil occurred
when Islamist terrorist Omar Mateen massacred 49 innocent
people in an Orlando nightclub.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration is more focused on
being politically correct in its terminology than actually
confronting this growing cancer, evidenced by, among other
things, the unnecessary censorship of Omar Mateen's 9/11 call
transcript.
In a joint statement with the FBI, the Department of
Justice said, the purpose of releasing the redacted transcript
was not wanting to provide the killer or terrorist
organizations with a publicity platform for hateful propaganda,
while still providing transparency. Omitting Omar Mateen's
pledge of allegiance to ISIS is one of many examples of the
willful ignorance of this administration in confronting the
threat of radical Islamist terror.
If anyone sincerely questions the assertion, you have to
look no further than 4 days ago when in response to the
Islamist extremist attacks in New York, New Jersey, and
Minnesota, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest, said when it
comes to ISIL, and this is in quotes--``We are in a fight, a
narrative fight with them, a narrative battle,'' That is great.
We fight with feckless terms and they slaughter our citizens.
While the administration says it refrains from using
certain terms so as not to condemn an entire religion, former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has said, ``It is
extraordinary that the political correctness of Western elites
has discouraged the study of what inspires those who dream of
slaughtering us. We must understand the deep roots of Islamist
beliefs if we are going to combat them. It is long past time to
stop hiding behind the facade of political correctness.''
``Radical Islamist terrorists are the ones who threaten our
freedoms and threaten our way of life, not the millions of
Muslims who value peace with their American brothers and
sisters. It is well-documented that these terrorists murder
more peaceful Muslims for their resistance to Sharia adherence
than any other group of people. If we are unwilling or afraid
to name our enemy and to dig deep into their ideological
motivations, how will we ever destroy this scourge?''
Retired Army Lieutenant General and former director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn said it best. ``We
are in a world war against a Messianic mass movement of evil
people, most of them inspired by a totalitarian ideology,
radical Islam. But we are not permitted to speak or write those
two words, which is potentially fatal to our culture. We can't
beat them if we don't understand them and are afraid to define
them, but our political leaders haven't permitted that.''
``We are not allowed to use the phrase radical Islam or
Islamists. That has got to change. By disavowing the use of
specific phrases and by denying contributing factors to this
extremist movement, the administration is undercutting
prominent Muslims who truly understand that reforming Islam
must come from within. We must target the root causes of
radicalization instead of waiting until countless more of our
citizens are murdered by these radicals and then playing
defense after the fact.''
The Department of Homeland Security was established in
response to the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
DHS currently is the lead Federal agency in an initiative known
as countering violent extremism or CVE.
For example, in September 2015, DHS created the Office of
Community Partnerships to counter violent extremism by
coordinating efforts among Federal agencies. Congress already
appropriated $10 million to DHS for CVE grants for fiscal year
2016, but we have no way of gauging whether CVE efforts have
been successful or harmful or if the money is being spent
wisely.
Additionally, in September 2015, the Department's Homeland
Security Advisor Council, or HSHC, established a Countering
Violent Extremism Subcommittee. However, I was appalled and
frankly disgusted to learn that a person who tweeted that the
9/11 attacks changed the world for good was even considered,
let alone asked to be a member of this group, tasked with
providing advice to senior Government officials responsible for
the safety of our Nation.
In addition, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson became the first
cabinet secretary to address the Islamic Society of North
America's annual conference, addressing an organization that
was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation
investigation, the largest terror financing investigation in
American history, is astounding.
Not only are these examples exceptionally troubling at
best, they call into question the Department's judgment and
allegiance when it comes to defeating this obvious threat. The
scale of these questions is made clear when observers consider
the outcome of the Holy Land Foundation proceedings. Along with
their plan, uncovered was the Muslim Brotherhood's goal of
eliminating and destroying civilization--American civilization.
Juxtapose that fact with the President's issuance of
Presidential Study Directive 11. While the document remains
Classified, open-source reporting by the Washington Post, Gulf
News, and Middle East Briefing found that in 2010, the Obama
administration abandoned the long-standing policy of dealing
with current regimes to ensure Middle East/North Africa
stability and instead implemented by the State Department,
transitioned recklessly into a policy of promoting and steering
political change in targeted countries including Egypt, Libya,
Yemen, and Syria by partnering directly with the Muslim
brotherhood.
I am sure I don't need to remind anyone here of the
breathtaking, costly, and unprecedented failures of these
irresponsible actions.
The purpose of this hearing is to gain an outside
perspective on the real threat that faces our Nation. Does our
Government truly understand the extent of radical Islamist
terror and what needs to be done to combat it? I hope this
hearing will provide much insight and needed insight into the
next actions we should take to fulfill our Constitutional duty
in protecting this country and its ideals. It is time for us to
identify the enemy and destroy it.
With that, I would like to request unanimous consent to
enter into the record the open-source documents regarding the
Presidential Study Directive 11 into the record.
Without objection so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Obama's Low-key Strategy for the Middle East
By David Ignatius, Washington Post, Sunday, March 6, 2011
President Obama has been so low-key in his pronouncements about
events in Egypt and Libya that it's easy to miss the extent of the
shift in U.S. strategy. In supporting the wave of change sweeping the
Arab world, despite the wariness of traditional allies such as Israel
and Saudi Arabia, Obama is placing a big bet that democratic
governments will be more stable and secure, and thereby enhance U.S.
interests in the region.
My own instinct, as someone who has been visiting the Arab world
for more than 30 years, is that Obama is right. But given the stakes,
it's important to examine how the White House is making its judgments--
and whether intelligence reporting supports these decisions.
Though the White House's response to these whirlwind events has
sometimes seemed erratic, the policy, which has been evolving for many
months, goes to the core of Obama's worldview. This is the president as
global community organizer--a man who believes that change is
inevitable and desirable, and that the United States must align itself
with the new forces shaping the world.
An Israeli official visiting Washington last week sounded a note of
caution: ``We are too close to the eye of the storm to judge,'' he
said. ``We need to be more modest in our assessments and put more
question marks at the end.''
But the Obama White House doesn't feel it has the luxury of
deferring judgment; history is moving too fast. Says one official,
``It's a roll of the dice, but it's also a response to reality.'' If
Obama has seemed low-key, he explains, it has been a calculated
``strategic reticence'' to send the message: This is your revolution;
it's not about us.
The roots of the policy shift go back to Obama's first days in
office and his feeling that America's relationship with the Arab world
was broken. Though Obama seemed to be accommodating the region's
authoritarian leaders, in August 2010, he issued Presidential Study
Directive 11, asking agencies to prepare for change.
This document cited ``evidence of growing citizen discontent with
the region's regimes'' and warned that ``the region is entering a
critical period of transition.'' The president asked his advisers to
``manage these risks by demonstrating to the people of the Middle East
and North Africa the gradual but real prospect of greater political
openness and improved governance.''
Six months later, street demonstrations were toppling autocratic
leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, who looked in vain for support from
Washington. Obama didn't come to the autocrats' rescue because he
believed the transformations were positive developments. ``We have a
core interest in stability through political and economic change. The
status quo is not stable,'' explains Ben Rhodes, a deputy national
security adviser.
The democratic youth movement sweeping the Arab world offered an
``alternative narrative'' to the versions of Islamic revolution put
forward by Iran and al-Qaeda, says Rhodes. If this change scenario can
succeed, threats to America will be reduced.
The White House studied past democratic transitions in Indonesia,
the Philippines, Serbia, Poland and Chile for ``lessons learned.''
Officials noted that last week national security adviser Tom Donilon
was reading former secretary of state George Shultz's account of the
peaceful ouster of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.
This review has led U.S. officials to conclude that countries need
to: bring the opposition quickly into the transition to achieve ``buy-
in''; make fast changes that people can see, such as freeing political
prisoners; and sequence events, putting the easiest first, so that
presidential elections precede parliamentary balloting and detailed
rewriting of the constitution.
How well does this idealistic agenda match up with ground truth? In
interviews last week, intelligence analysts said that Islamic
extremists don't seem to be hijacking the process of change. There are
near-term tactical dangers, said one counterterrorism analyst, such as
the escape of prisoners in Egypt and the potential weakening of the
intelligence service there. But this official says there's no evidence
that al-Qaeda has been able to take advantage of the turmoil. It took a
week for Ayman al-Zawahiri, the group's No. 2 official, to publish his
windy and out-of-touch analysis of events in Egypt.
Change will have its downside, but a second U.S. intelligence
analyst offers this estimate: ``This is a world we can live with. Our
relationship with Egypt may be different and rockier, but I don't think
it will be inherently hostile.'' As for the much-feared Muslim
Brotherhood, it is currently planning to run parliamentary candidates
in only 150 of Egypt's 454 districts, and no candidate for president.
______
U.S. State Dept. Document Confirms Regime Change Agenda in Middle East
Middle East Briefing, June 9, 2014
The Obama Administration has been pursuing a policy of covert
support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other insurgent movements in the
Middle East since 2010. MEB has obtained a just-released U.S. State
Department document through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that
confirms the Obama Administration's pro-active campaign for regime
change throughout the Middle East and North Africa region.
The October 22, 2010 document, titled ``Middle East Partnership
Initiative: Overview,'' spells out an elaborate structure of State
Department programs aimed at directly building ``civil society''
organizations, particularly non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to
alter the internal politics of the targeted countries in favor of U.S.
foreign policy and national security objectives.
The five-page document, while using diplomatic language, makes
clear that the goal is promoting and steering political change in the
targeted countries: ``The Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) is
a regional program that empowers citizens in the Middle East and North
Africa to develop more pluralistic, participatory, and prosperous
societies. As the figures in this overview illustrate, MEPI has evolved
from its origins in 2002 into a flexible, region-wide tool for direct
support to indigenous civil society that mainstreams that support into
the daily business of USG diplomacy in the region. MEPI engages all the
countries of the NEA region except Iran. In the seven of NEA's eighteen
countries and territories with USAID missions, country-level
discussions and communication between MEPI and USAID in Washington
ensure that programming efforts are integrated and complementary.''
In a section of the document titled ``How MEPI Works,'' three core
elements of the program were spelled out: region-wide and multi-country
programming, local grants, and country-specific projects. The
objectives of the region-wide and multi-country programming were
described as: ``builds networks of reformers to learn from and support
one another, and to catalyze progressive change in the region.'' The
local grants ``provide direct support to indigenous civic groups, and
now represent more than half of MEPI's projects.'' Under the country-
specific aspect of the program, designated officers of the U.S.
embassies manage the funding and work as direct liaisons to the various
funded local NGOs and other civil society groups. The ``country-
specific projects'' are tasked ``to respond to local developments and
local needs, as identified by our embassies, local reformers, and our
own field analysis. Political developments in a country may produce new
opportunities or challenges for USG policy goals, and MEPI will shift
funds to respond to these needs.''
According to the October 2010 document, the Deputy Chief of Mission
(DCM) at every U.S. embassy in the MENA (Middle East/North Africa) is
in charge of the MEPI program, giving it a clear high priority. The
document makes clear that the Middle East Partnership Initiative is not
coordinated with host governments: ``MEPI works primarily with civil
society, through NGO implementers based in the United States and in the
region. MEPI does not provide funds to foreign governments, and does
not negotiate bilateral assistance agreements. As a regional program,
MEPI can shift funds across countries and to new issue-areas as
needed.''
The document makes clear that special priority, as early as 2010,
was given to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain, and that
project headquarters in Abu Dhabi and Tunis were overall coordinating
centers for the entire regional program. Within a year of its
inception, Libya and Syria were added to the list of countries on the
priority list for civil society intervention.
The State Department document was released as part of an FOIA suit
focused on Presidential Study Directive 11, which remains classified
``secret'' and has not yet been released to the public. According to
MEB sources, PSD-11 spelled out the Obama Administration's plans to
support the Muslim Brotherhood and other allied ``political Islam''
movements believed at the time to be compatible with U.S. foreign
policy objectives in the region.
The MEPI is currently directed by Paul Sutphin, who was previously
U.S. consul general in Erbil, Iraq and more recently, Director of the
Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs at the State Department's
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. His deputy is Catherin Bourgeois, who
was first assigned to MEPI in February 2009 as Division Chief of Policy
and Programming. Her past State Department assignments have involved
the development of Information Technology uses in advancing U.S.
foreign policy goals.
Two other senior State Department officials have overseen the
development and expansion of the program since the drafting of the
October 2010 MEPI document, spelling out its transformation into a
regime-change force. Tomicah S. Tillemann is the Senior Advisor for
Civil Society and Emerging Democracies, appointed to that post by then-
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in October 2010. He remains in that
post under Secretary John Kerry. He was the founder of the Lantos
Foundation for Human Rights and Justice, itself an NGO named after
Tilleman's grandfather, the former U.S. Congressman, Tom Lantos.
In September 2011, Ambassador William B. Taylor was appointed to
head the then-newly established Office of the Special Coordinator for
Middle East Transitions, after having served as the U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine during the ``Orange Revolution'' of 2006-2009. According to a
State Department paper, ``The Office of the Special Coordinator for
Middle East Transitions (D/MET), established in September 2011,
coordinates United States Government assistance to incipient
democracies arising from popular revolts across the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) region. The Special Coordinator for Middle East
Transitions implements a coordinated interagency strategy to support
designated MENA countries undergoing transitions to democracy-
currently, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.''
The complete State Department documents released under the FOIA
will soon be available as part of a comprehensive MEB Special Report
now in production on the regime-change program and its consequences for
the region. For upcoming details on this report, check the MEB website.
The Case of Egypt (2): Six Months of Insider Emails from Obama
Administration Show Groundwork for Muslim Brotherhood Power Grabs
Middle East Briefing
In an ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Obama
Administration has released scores of internal emails, all heavily
redacted, which nevertheless detail a six month White House-led review
of prospects of Muslim Brotherhood Islamic rule in the Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) region. The Obama Administration policy planning
review took place between September 2010 and February 2011.
The review process, headed by National Security Council staffers
Dennis Ross, Samantha Power, Gayle Smith, Ben Rhodes and Michael
McFaul, began with President Obama's signing of Presidential Study
Directive 11 (PSD-11) in August 2010, demanding a government-wide
reassessment of the prospects of political reform and the potential
role of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the MENA region. All told,
dozens of officials from the NSC and the State Department's Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, Office of Middle East Transitions, Office of
Senior Advisor for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies, the
Secretary's Policy Planning staff, and the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor took part in the six month review.
A careful review of 98 emails between White House, National
Security Council and State Department officials reveals that the review
concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood was a viable movement for the
U.S. to support throughout North Africa and the Middle East. As the
result, under Presidential direction, American diplomats intensified
contacts with top Muslim Brotherhood leaders and gave active support to
the organization's drive for power in key nations like Egypt, Libya,
Tunisia and Syria, beginning in early 2011 at the outset of the ``Arab
Spring.''
Talking Points prepared for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for
a June 30, 2011 visit to Budapest, Hungary headlined ``Muslim
Brotherhood Q&A,'' written by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs'
Office of Press & Public Diplomacy, ``welcomed dialogue with the Muslim
Brotherhood,'' particularly in Egypt. The Talking Points emphasized
that the U.S. was willing to talk to ``all parties committed to
nonviolence,'' and specifically praised the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood
for their ``inclusion of women.'' The prepared answers also noted that
U.S. contact with the Muslim Brotherhood ``has occurred off and on
since the 1980s,'' but that these contacts would no longer be
restricted to elected parliamentarians only.
A State Department memo from Michael A. Hammer to Jeffrey D.
Feltman, Anne W. Patterson, Jacob Walles and Roopa Rangaswamy, also
dated June 30, 2011, noted that ``S got the question at her presser in
Budapest a short while ago,'' and her answer closely followed the
Talking Points prepared for her. Secretary Clinton told the press
conference questioner
``There is no U.S. legal prohibition against dealing with the Muslim
Brotherhood itself, which long ago renounced violence as a means to
achieve political change in Egypt and which is not regarded by
Washington as a foreign terrorist organization. But other sympathetic
groups, such as Hamas, which identifies the Brotherhood as its
spiritual guide, have not disavowed violence against the state of
Israel.''
The Obama Administration's support for the Brotherhood only first
began to be questioned in November-December 2012, after Egyptian
President Mohammed Morsi ordered a violent crackdown on peaceful
protesters outside the presidential residency, who were demanding more
inclusive rule and economic progress. At that time, American officials
confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood had deployed its own paramilitary
squads to kidnap some protesters and hold them in secret locations with
no judicial review or court authority. Some of those victims were badly
beaten before being eventually released.
Up until now, the Justice Department has invoked secrecy to block
the release of PSD-11 and the February 16, 2011 PDD-13 study on the
prospects of Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt and other countries of
the region. It is anticipated that this decision by the State
Department and the Justice Department will be challenged in Federal
court in Washington, D.C. sometime later this year.
The original PSD-11, an 18-page classified paper, demanded a
detailed blueprint for how the U.S. could ``push for political change''
in countries with ``autocratic rulers'' who are historic allies of the
United States.
As part of the study, the Obama National Security Council and key
State Department officials reviewed the consequences of the U.S.
rejection of the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, which were
won by Hamas. The February 16, 2011 secret paper concluded that the
Muslim Brotherhood's brand of political Islam, combined with its
fervent nationalism, could lead to reform and stability.
The study, conducted over the previous 6-month period by an
Interagency Policy Committee chaired by the NSC, drew a sharp contrast
between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, despite evidence of
frequent overlaps of personnel and ideology. One unnamed administration
official who helped draft the Feb. 16, 2011 PPD-13, stated in March
2011, ``If our policy can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Muslim
Brotherhood, we won't be able to adapt to this change. We're also not
going to allow ourselves to be driven by fear.''
______
US document reveals cooperation between Washington and Brotherhood
studies commissioned by the president concluded that the us should back
``moderate islamists'' in the region
Gulf News Report, Published: 19:32 June 18, 2014
Dubai: For the past decade, two successive US administrations have
maintained close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia,
Syria and Libya, to name just the most prominent cases.
The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim
Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as
the ``Arab Spring'' erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt. The President
personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010,
ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other ``political
Islamist'' movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately
concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding
policy of supporting ``stability'' in the Middle East and North Africa
(that is, support for ``stable regimes'' even if they were
authoritarian), to a policy of backing ``moderate'' Islamic political
movements.
To this day, PSD-11 remains classified, in part because it reveals
an embarrassingly naive and uninformed view of trends in the Middle
East and North Africa (Mena) region.
The revelations were made by Al Hewar centre in Washington, DC,
which obtained the documents in question.
Through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit,
thousands of pages of documentation of the US State Department's
dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood are in the process of being
declassified and released to the public.
US State Department documents obtained under the FOIA confirm that
the Obama administration maintained frequent contact and ties with the
Libyan Muslim Brotherhood. At one point, in April 2012, US officials
arranged for the public relations director of the Libyan Muslim
Brotherhood, Mohammad Gaair, to come to Washington to speak at a
conference on ``Islamists in Power'' hosted by the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace.
A State Department Cable classified ``Confidential'' report says
the following: ``Benghazi Meeting With Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: On
April 2 [2012] Mission Benghazi met with a senior member of the Muslim
Brotherhood steering committee, who will speak at the April 5 Carnegie
Endowment `Islamist in Power' conference in Washington, D.C. He
described the Muslim Brotherhood's decision to form a political party
as both an opportunity and an obligation in post-revolution Libya after
years of operating underground. The Brotherhood's Justice and
Construction Party would likely have a strong showing in the upcoming
elections, he said, based on the strength of the Brotherhood's network
in Libya, its broad support, the fact that it is a truly national
party, and that 25 percent of its members were women. He described the
current relationship between the Brotherhood and the TNC (Transitional
National Council) as `lukewarm.' ''
Another State Department paper marked ``Sensitive But Unclassified
(SBU)'' contained talking points for Deputy Secretary of State William
Burns' scheduled July 14, 2012 meeting with Mohammad Sawan, the Muslim
Brotherhood leader who was also head of the Brotherhood's Justice and
Construction Party. The document is heavily redacted, but nevertheless
provides clear indication of Washington's sympathies for the emergence
of the Muslim Brotherhood as a major political force in the post-
Gaddafi Libya. The talking points recommended that Secretary Burns tell
Sawan that the US government entities ``share your party's concerns in
ensuring that a comprehensive transitional justice process is
undertaken to address past violations so that they do not spark new
discontent.''
The Burns paper described the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: ``Prior to
last year's revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned for over
three decades and its members were fiercely pursued by the Gaddafi
regime. The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood (LMB) returned to Libya last year
after years in exile in Europe and the United States, selected new
leadership and immediately began to plan for an active role in Libya's
political future.'' After a redacted section, the document continued,
``The LMB-affiliated Justice and Construction party, led by Misratan
and former political prisoner under Gaddafi Mohammad Sawan, was created
in March 2012. Sawan himself was not a candidate in the elections but
wields significant influence as the head of the largest political party
and most influential Islamist party in Libya.''
The July 14 meeting was attended by both Secretary Burns and
Ambassador Christopher Stevens. On September 11, 2012, Ambassador
Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed in a
premeditated terrorist attack on US mission and CIA facilities in
Benghazi.
An undated State Department cable revealed further courting of the
LMB and its Justice and Construction Party. ``Mohammad Sawan, Chairman
of Justice and Construction Party, received yesterday at his office in
Tripoli, Ambassadors of US, UK, FR and IT. The Ambassadors requested
the meeting to get acquainted with the party's position on the current
events in Libya, the Government, the Party's demand to sack the Prime
Minister, the Constitution, GNC lifetime arguments, dialogue
initiatives and Party's assessment of political and security situation
in Libya and the region. During the meeting, which took an hour and a
half and attended by Mohammad Talb, party's International Relations
officer, and Hussam Naeli, acting liaison officer, Sawan explained that
the Government has not been able to achieve any success in the core
files such as security and local government, which both are under the
direct supervision of the Prime Minister. Such a failure resulted in
the lack of security, continuous assassinations, kidnappings, crimes,
smuggling and attacks on public and private property, halt oil exports
and disruption of water and electricity supply. Sawan stressed that a
solution is possible and the party presented a clear solution, but the
Government is not in harmony. He added we are responsible only for
ministries that we take part in.''
The State Department cable noted that ``On their part, the
Ambassadors praised the active role of the Party in the political scene
and confirmed their standing with the Libyan people and Government
despite its weaknesses and they are keen to stabilize the region . . .
At the end of the meeting, Sawan thanked his guests and all stressed
the need to communicate. The guests affirmed that they will assist
through Libyan legitimate entities as they did during the revolution.''
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of
the subcommittee, the gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs. Watson
Coleman, for her statement.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I
enter into my statement, I want to ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Ellison participate in today's hearing and question
the witnesses.
Mr. Perry. Without objection.
Ms. Watson Coleman. As I am doing this, I also seek
unanimous consent that Congressman Pascrell participate in
today's hearing and question the witnesses.
Mr. Perry. Without objection so ordered.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding today's hearing. I thank the witnesses
for your testimony that we will hear today. I also would like
to thank Linden, New Jersey authorities that apprehended the
suspected New York and New Jersey bomber on Monday. My thoughts
and my prayers are with the Officers Padilla and Hammer, and I
wish them a speedy and complete recovery.
Last week we honored those who lost their lives on
September 11, 2001; 15 years after these horrific attacks, we
recognize that the terrorist threat to the United States has
evolved. No longer do terrorists have to travel overseas, for a
training or be directed by a leader of a terrorist organization
in order to cause harm to the United States.
As we have seen from the terrorist attacks in Orlando and
in Charleston, and quite possibly the attacks in Minnesota and
New York, terrorist attacks in the United States can be lone
actors inspired by a particular ideology. This ideology can be
espoused on the internet or in public forums.
Additionally, propaganda including political discussions,
such as the name of this hearing, that provide a misnomer to
the threat, also add to the rhetoric that can inspire a lone
actor. Inflammatory rhetoric such as a suggestion that the
United States should ban or surveil certain populations also
fuel terrorist groups. I caution those with public platforms to
be more mindful when addressing that threat.
This is not a matter of being politically correct. This is
recognizing that our words resonate beyond these four walls.
The words we say reach terrorists, both foreign and domestic-
inspired. Even though we have complicated the situation by
debating about labels, the Federal Government, including the
Department of Homeland Security, has renewed its focus on
countering violent extremism.
While the administration states that countering violent
extremism is a whole-of-Government approach, DHS is seemingly a
Federal Government leader for countering violent extremism. Our
witness today is the chair of the Countering Violent Extremism
Task Force.
Also, last year DHS created the Office for Community
Partnerships and recently established the fiscal year 2016 CVE
grant program. These programs were designed to develop and
expand efforts to counter violent extremist activity. However,
while Congress has appropriated the funds for these efforts,
there has been no CVE strategy issued by the Department, and
there has been no implementation plan of this strategy
submitted to Congress.
I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Selim, on specific
CVE strategy that will be implemented, and I look forward to
you resolving the lack of transparency behind the Department's
CVE programs.
Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is
the reason of the Department of Homeland Security, its
creation. Therefore, it is imperative that the Department and
Congress look at the threat picture as a whole.
So I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, their
four perspectives on the threat to this country, what we are
facing and the ways in which not only DHS but also the Federal
Government as a whole can counter violent extremism.
With that, Mr. Chairman, as we consider today's subject
matter and we consider the activities that we need to engage
in, the efforts that we need to support, and the work that
needs to be done and not get hung up on the rhetoric of what we
call it, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Watson Coleman follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bonnie Watson Coleman
September 22, 2016
Last week, we honored those who lost their lives on September 11,
2001. Fifteen years after these horrific attacks, we recognize that the
terrorist threat to the United States has evolved.
No longer do terrorists have to travel overseas for training or be
directed by a leader of a terrorist organization in order to cause harm
to the United States.
As we have seen from the terrorist attacks in Orlando and in
Charleston, and quite possibly the attacks in Minnesota and New York,
terrorist attacks in the United States can be lone actors, inspired by
a particular ideology. This ideology can be espoused on the internet or
in public forums.
Additionally, propaganda including political discussions--such as
the name of this hearing--that provide a misnomer to the threat also
add to the rhetoric that can inspire a lone actor. Inflammatory
rhetoric such as the suggestion that the United States should ban or
surveil certain populations also fuel terrorist groups.
I caution those with public platforms to be more mindful when
addressing the threat. This is not a matter of being politically
correct. This is recognizing that our words resonate beyond these four
walls.
The words we say reach terrorists--both foreign and domestic
inspired. Even though we have complicated the situation by debating
about labels, the Federal Government, including the Department of
Homeland Security, has renewed its focus on countering violent
extremism.
While the administration states that countering violent extremism
is a whole-of-Government approach, DHS is seemingly a Federal
Government leader for countering violent extremism.
Our witness today is the chair of the countering violent extremism
task force. Also, last year, DHS created the Office for Community
Partnerships and recently established the fiscal year 2016 CVE grant
program. These programs were designed to develop and expand efforts to
counter violent extremist activity.
However, while Congress has appropriated funds for these efforts,
there has been no CVE strategy issued by the Department and there has
been no implementation plan of this strategy submitted to Congress.
I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Selim, a specific CVE
strategy that will be implemented and I look forward to you resolving
the lack of transparency behind the Department's CVE programs.
Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is the reason
the Department of Homeland Security was created. Therefore, it is
imperative that the Department and Congress look at the threat picture
as a whole.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses informed
perspectives on the threat this country is facing and the ways in which
not only DHS, but also the Federal Government as a whole, can counter
violent extremism.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Thompson, the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
holding today's hearing. I would also like to thank this
witness and the other witnesses for their testimony they will
offer. I join the Ranking Member in thanking the New Jersey
authorities that apprehended the suspected New York and New
Jersey bomber on Monday.
Today we are hearing from the Department of Homeland
Security and a private-sector panel on the Federal Government's
effort to counter violent extremism. The threat from violent
extremism has changed since September 11. Terrorists do not
have to travel overseas to receive training. As we saw in the
deadliest attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 in Orlando this past
June, the terrorists are acting alone, outside of large cells.
Terrorists do not have to be directed by any one leader and
do not have to be affiliated with any particular group.
Terrorists are now being inspired by social media or other
public platforms including political discourse. While top
counterterrorism officials have stated that un-American
policies, such as profiling and exclusion play into the hands
of terrorists, people with public platforms still continue to
use this rhetoric.
For example, there is a Presidential nominee who has chosen
to call 11 million people rapists and murderers and proposed
cold war ideological tests on Muslim visitors to this country.
We have Members of Congress who suggested that we should
profile entire communities.
In fact, just yesterday in this very room, we had a Member
make a comparison of a gifted student's engineering project to
the bombs that were built by the perpetrator in New York and
New Jersey. While we put a continued focus on one community and
debate titles and names, we still willingly neglect the current
threat picture.
Yesterday, we also heard from the well-respected heads of
police departments from across the Nation. They told us that
foreign terrorist organizations pose a threat to their
communities. But their officers also live with the threat from
sovereign citizens and other right and left wing groups.
Our witnesses agreed that the wide-spread proliferation of
guns into the hands of terrorists, inspired by foreign and
domestic extremists, haunt law enforcement every day.
This was not the committee's first time hearing that guns
were adding complexities to the current threat picture.
Secretary Johnson testified that in order for Homeland Security
to improve there must be sensible gun laws. Even though we just
have had testimony from the Secretary of Homeland Security and
police on the front lines about the need for gun reform, the
Republican majority continues to block legislation to keep guns
out of the hands of terrorists.
Knowing that the threat landscape has changed, the
Department of Homeland Security renewed its focus countering
violent extremism. In September 2015, DHS established the
Office of Community Partnerships to further the Department's
CVE efforts. DHS also chairs the administration's CVE task
force, which places the agency at the front of the
administration's CVE efforts.
While the Department has renewed its focus on countering
violent extremism and is a part of this task force, DHS, which
stated that there was a Department-wide CVE strategy in
formation, still has not sent this strategy or implementation
plan to Congress.
Hopefully today, Mr. Selim can give this subcommittee a
date that the DHS CVE strategy and implementation plan will be
submitted to Congress. Furthermore, even though the Department
has this new office that is supposed to counter violent
extremism of all types, its testimony contains short-sighted
examples.
Foreign terrorist organizations are mentioned approximately
20 times throughout the Department's testimony. The Department
does not articulate any activity in which it engages to counter
violent extremism from domestic movements.
I can say that I am not shocked. However, as an agency
whose mission is to secure the Nation from the threats we face,
I will say that having such a myopic approach to countering
violent extremism is a disservice to the American people.
Today I anticipate a robust discussion and hope that both
our Members and witnesses will respectively engage in a
constructive dialog that will inform our counter violent
extremism policies and efforts going forward. With that, I
yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
September 22, 2016
Today, we are hearing from the Department of Homeland Security and
a private-sector panel on the Federal Government's efforts to Counter
Violent Extremism. The threat from violent extremism has changed since
September 11.
Terrorists do not have to travel overseas to receive training. As
we saw in the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, in
Orlando this past June, the terrorists are acting alone, outside of
large cells. Terrorists do not have to be directed by any one leader
and do not have to be affiliated with any particular group. Terrorists
are now being inspired by social media and other public platforms,
including political discourse.
While top counterterrorism officials have stated that un-American
policies such as profiling and exclusion play into the hands of
terrorists, people with public platforms still continue to use this
rhetoric. For example, there is a Presidential nominee who has chosen
to call 11 million people rapists and murders and proposes Cold War
ideological tests on Muslim visitors to this country. We have Members
of Congress who suggest that we should profile entire communities. In
fact, just yesterday in this very room, we had a Member make a
comparison of a gifted student's engineering project to the bombs that
were built by the perpetrator in New York and New Jersey.
And while we put a continued focus on one community and debate
titles and names, we still willingly neglect the current threat
picture. Yesterday, we also heard from well-respected heads of police
departments from across this Nation. They told us that foreign
terrorist organizations pose a threat to their communities, but their
officers also live with the threat from sovereign citizens and other
right- and left-wing groups.
Our witnesses agreed that the wide-spread proliferation of guns
into the hands of terrorists inspired by foreign and domestic
extremists haunts law enforcement every day. This was not the
Committee's first time hearing that guns were adding complexities to
the current threat picture. Secretary Johnson testified that in order
for homeland security to improve there must be sensible gun laws.
Even though we have testimony from the Secretary of Homeland
Security and police on the front lines about the need for gun reform,
the Republican majority continues to block legislation to keep guns out
of the hands of terrorists.
Knowing that the threat landscape has changed, the Department of
Homeland Security renewed its focus countering violent extremism. In
September 2015, DHS established the Office of Community Partnerships to
further the Department's CVE efforts. DHS also chairs the
administration's CVE task force, which places the agency at the
forefront of the administration's CVE efforts. While the Department has
renewed its focus on countering violent extremism and is a part of this
task force, DHS--which stated that there was a Department-wide CVE
strategy in formation--still has not sent this strategy or
implementation plan to Congress.
Hopefully, today, Mr. Selim can give this subcommittee a date that
the DHS CVE strategy and implementation plan will be submitted to
Congress.
Furthermore, even though the Department has this new office that is
supposed to counter violent extremism of all types, its testimony today
contains short-sighted examples.
Foreign terrorist organizations are mentioned approximately 20
times throughout the Department's testimony. The Department does not
articulate any activity in which it engages to counter violent
extremism from domestic movements.
I can say that I am not shocked; however, as the agency whose
mission is to secure the Nation from the threats we face, I will say
that having such a myopic approach to countering violent extremism is a
disservice to the American public.
Today, I anticipate a robust discussion and hope that both our
Members and witnesses will respectfully engage in a constructive
dialogue that will inform our countering violent extremism policies and
efforts going forward.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member. Other
Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have two panels of distinguished
witnesses before us today. The witnesses' entire written
statements will appear in the record.
The Chair will introduce the first panel and then recognize
you for your testimony. Our first panel, Mr. George Selim is
the director of the Office of Community Partnerships at the
Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Selim also leads the
interagency Countering Violent Extremism or CVE Taskforce
intended to integrate and synchronize Federal efforts on this
issue. Previously, he served for 4 years as the White House's
director of community partnerships on the National Security
Council.
Prior to his work at the White House, Mr. Selim was a
senior policy advisor in the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties at the Department of Homeland Security. He is also a
commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, and I thank you
for your service, sir. Thank you for being here today.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Selim for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE SELIM, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Selim. Thank you, Chairman Perry. Good morning, Ranking
Member Watson Coleman, Ranking Member Thompson, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
to testify today. Let me also start out by acknowledging the
outstanding work of the first responders, law enforcement, and
intelligence professionals both in the New York-New Jersey area
and in the State of Minnesota for their heroic work over the
course of the past several days.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
priorities and key actions of the Department of Homeland
Security to counter violent extremism. I have considerable
personal and professional equities in protecting our homeland,
as the Chairman kindly laid out.
By way of background, I have spent over a decade as a civil
servant at the Department of Homeland Security. I have also
served at the Department of Justice and at the National
Security Council staff at the White House. In addition, I am a
commissioned officer in the United States Navy Reserve and view
the call to public service as one of the greatest honors our
country offers all people regardless of race, religion, or
National origin.
In recent years, the threat of violent extremism has
evolved. The types of attacks we have seen at home and abroad
are not just terrorist-directed attacks, but they are also
terrorist-inspired attacks, as ISIL and other extremist groups
are turning to the internet to inspire lone offenders.
By their nature, attacks involving self-radicalized
individuals or lone offenders are harder for intelligence and
law enforcement professionals to detect, and they can occur
with little or no notice. The attacks in San Bernardino,
Orlando and, most recently in New York, New Jersey, and
Minnesota highlight both the urgency and severity of the threat
that we face today.
So what are we doing about it? The evolving threat posed by
home-grown violent extremism requires going beyond the
traditional counterterrorism approach and focusing not just on
mitigation, but also on preventing and intervening in the
process of radicalization. This prevention framework that I
have just mentioned is known to many as countering violent
extremism or CVE.
As was noted earlier, in September 2015, Secretary Johnson
announced the creation of the office that I am honored to lead,
the Office for Community Partnerships within DHS. This office
is the focus of our Department's efforts to counter violent
extremism and works to build effective partnerships with
communities across the country for this purpose.
Our CVE efforts depend on working in a unified and cohesive
manner across the U.S. Government. That is why we have
established the CVE task force, currently headquartered at DHS,
to organize all our CVE efforts across the domestic spectrum.
This new task force could not have been possible without
the strong partnership from the Department of Justice, who have
appointed my deputy director and several key staff to this
interagency body.
A unified effort is necessary given the threat environment
we face today. Terrorist groups, such as ISIL, have undertaken
a deliberate strategy of using social media to reach
individuals susceptible to their message and recruit and
radicalize them to violence. The Office for Community
Partnerships and the CVE taskforce depend on a range of
stakeholder partners to reach individuals before they can be
radicalized.
Our partners in Federal, State, and local governments,
along with law enforcement, civic and faith leaders, educators,
social service organizations, mental health providers, and the
private sector are essential to a unified mission set. Our
efforts are Federally-driven, but they are locally-focused.
Our CVE efforts aim to counter the types of ideological
recruitment we have seen in recent years, focusing on potential
root causes and drivers and working to provide off-ramps for
individuals who may have taken steps toward embracing an
ideology that advocates violence.
At the same time, we remain consistent in rejecting the
terrorist narrative that the West is in conflict with Islam,
while denying ISIL, the religious legitimacy that they
desperately seek as part of their broader effort to continually
recruit and radicalize American citizens to violence. Our goal
is to empower credible voices within communities that are
targeted by violent extremists.
Research has proven that young people, millennials, victims
of terrorism, and community-based organizations are the most
credible voices to discourage those in danger of being
radicalized to violence, and our role in the Federal Government
should be to give those partners the tools and resources they
need to raise their own voices.
Some of these tools can be provided by technology
companies, and we are working with the private sector to
encourage efforts to counter ISIL and other extremist groups
on-line. One of these signature efforts that I have testified
to before is titled the Peer-to-Peer Challenging Extremism
Competition, which I am happy to expand on. Our efforts to
develop locally-driven prevention-based CVE frameworks,
incorporate both on-line and in-person efforts.
Thanks to the $10 million in CVE grant funding that
Congress appropriated in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus
appropriations act, we can continue to take this fight to the
next level. On July 6 of this year, the Department formally
issued the notice of funding opportunity for fiscal year 2016
countering violent extremism grant program with $10 million in
available funds.
This is the first Federal assistance program devoted
exclusively to providing local communities with the resources
to counter violent extremism in the homelands. This grant
program was developed by the DHS Office of Community
Partnerships in partnership with our colleagues and partners at
FEMA. The grant period just closed, and I am pleased to
announce the results have been extraordinary.
We received over 200 grant applications from over 42 States
and territories. All told, we received over $100 million in
grant applications. This is a tremendous indication of both the
need and desire of State, local, and community-based partners
to proactively engage in these efforts. This grant opportunity
is an important part of our CVE work in building a
comprehensive model that incorporates both cyber space and
community space.
As I have stated, events of the last week underscore just
how urgent these issues remain and how critical our CVE efforts
are in addressing some of our most critical challenges that we
face today.
Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you again for the
opportunity to provide testimony today, and I look forward to
working with you and your staffs on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Selim follows:]
Statement of George Selim
September 22, 2016
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit
this written statement for the record. I welcome the opportunity to
discuss priorities and key actions of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to Counter Violent Extremism (CVE).
overview of threat
In recent years, the threat of violent extremism has evolved.
Terrorists at home and abroad are attempting to radicalize and recruit
individuals to commit acts of violence within the United States. As
Secretary Johnson has said, we are in a new phase in the global
terrorist threat.
DHS recognizes that the types of attacks we have seen at home and
abroad are not just terrorist-directed attacks, but also terrorist-
inspired attacks. These attacks are conducted by those who live among
us in the homeland and become inspired and radicalized to violence by
terrorist propaganda on the internet. We are concerned about attempts
by ISIL and other terrorist groups to inspire lone offenders. For
example, ISIL consistently releases high-quality English-language
videos and magazines promoting its alleged caliphate and calling for
supporters in the West to pursue attacks in their homelands.
Terrorist-inspired attacks are often difficult to detect by our
intelligence and law-enforcement communities. They can occur with
little or no notice, and present a complex homeland security challenge.
As ISIL continues to lose territory, it has increased its attacks and
attempted attacks on targets outside of Iraq and Syria. We were
forcefully reminded of this on the morning of June 12, 2016 when over
300 individuals were terrorized in an Orlando night club by a man who
shot and killed 49 individuals and injured 53 more. We believe he may
have been inspired, in part, by terrorist organizations overseas,
resulting in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. Further, the
events just last weekend in New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota
underscore the urgency of this issue.
The current threat environment requires us to build on conventional
approaches to counterterrorism. Countering violent extremism (CVE) has
become a key focus of DHS's work to secure the homeland. Al-Qaeda and
ISIL continue to target Muslim-American communities in our country to
recruit and inspire individuals to commit acts of violence. Well-
informed families and communities are our best defense against
terrorist ideologies, which represent the current threat from ISIL's
propaganda. Within this context, working with communities to prevent
radicalization to violence has become imperative. Muslims are
undoubtedly the group most directly targeted by ISIL overseas. In the
United States, they may also be best placed to identify potential
indicators of ISIL-inspired attacks.
We also know that plots inspired by ISIL and al-Qaeda are not the
only violent extremist threats we face. These threats come from a range
of groups and individuals, including domestic terrorists. Individuals
inspired by ISIL and al-Qaeda continue to pose the most immediate
threat, as the attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando have demonstrated,
but events in Charleston, Dallas, and Oak Creek illustrate that there
are a range of behaviors and motivations that can lead to violent
extremism domestically. As we tragically experienced 15 years ago with
the terrorist attacks on 9/11, a failure to adapt to an evolving threat
can have devastating consequences, and we want to ensure that we are
focused on the full landscape of the violent extremist spectrum.
The DHS Office for Community Partnerships (OCP) was set up to
further our domestic CVE efforts and provide support to communities,
State and local partners, and civic organizations who are actively
seeking tools and resources to protect their communities. Since 9/11,
we have seen time and time again that Federal efforts to counter
violent extremism will only be successful with the trust of local
communities and stakeholders.
taking our cve efforts to the next level
When Secretary Johnson announced an Office for Community
Partnerships in 2015, he instructed me to focus the Department's
efforts on countering violent extremism and work to build relationships
and promote trust with local communities across the United States.
OCP's mission includes efforts to support and enhance efforts by
key stakeholders to prevent and counter radicalization and recruitment
to violence. The Office leverages the resources and relationships of
the Department and applies the personal leadership of the Secretary and
senior officials to empower leaders in both the public and private
sectors by raising awareness of the threat of violent extremism.
We are focused on partnering with and empowering communities by
providing them a wide range of resources to counter violent extremism.
In addition, we are partnering with the private sector to find
innovative, community-based approaches to countering violent extremism
on social media. Key stakeholders and partners working with OCP include
the private sector, civil society, and local law enforcement.
Influential community leaders such as religious leaders, city councils
and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) work directly with OCP
field staff in identifying community priority issues, conducting CVE
community exercises, and addressing concerns at community engagement
roundtables in partnership with the DHS Office for Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties. OCP also works with local, State, and Federal law
enforcement by providing training, exercises, and technical assistance.
Advancing that effort also means working in a unified and
coordinated way across the U.S. Government, which is the purpose of the
interagency CVE Task Force announced in January 2016. The Task Force is
hosted and currently led by DHS, and the leadership will rotate every 2
years between a DHS and a Department of Justice (DOJ) executive. The
Task Force includes participation from over 10 departments and agencies
across the Federal Government.
The mission of the Task Force is to organize CVE efforts across the
Federal Government and coordinate a whole-of-Government approach to
empower local partners to prevent violent extremism in the United
States. Specifically, its major objectives include coordinating and
prioritizing Federal CVE research and establishing feedback mechanisms
to increase the relevance of CVE findings; synchronizing Federal CVE
outreach and engagement; managing CVE communications and leveraging
digital technologies to engage, empower, and connect CVE stakeholders;
and supporting the development of intervention programs. Ensuring that
the Nation's CVE efforts are sufficiently resourced as described in the
President's fiscal year 2017 budget has been an integral part of our
overall efforts.
international efforts
Internationally, DHS regularly exchanges best practices and works
to enhance our understanding of regional threat variation through
multilateral and bilateral engagements. Robust international
engagements enhance our understanding of the challenges posed by
radicalization to violence and provide useful mechanisms for developing
new approaches for addressing these challenges. Moving forward, we will
pursue efforts to share promising practices and research among many
countries to enhance our understanding and build a stronger evidence
base.
In addition to our international partnerships, OCP also works
closely with the State Department's Global Engagement Center (GEC). The
Task Force leadership and GEC leadership regularly meet to discuss a
range of CVE issues. In addition, the GEC director and I have open
lines of communication, as do a number of their key personnel with OCP
and Task Force staff. DHS also has a full-time detailee to the GEC who
regularly reports to and meets with Task Force personnel. Finally, the
Task Force receives GEC guidance on messaging opportunities as well as
on-going strategic guidance on themes used by the Global Coalition to
Counter ISIL, which are then disseminated to a range of key
stakeholders as appropriate.
We also work closely with other Department of State offices on CVE-
related issues. The Task Force works closely with the CT/CVE Bureau and
the Department of State's CVE director.
working to de-legitimize isil
As the President recently noted after a counter-ISIL meeting with
members of the National Security Council, ``Groups like ISIL and al-
Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between
Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders
of over a billion Muslims around the world who reject their crazy
notions. They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for
those billion-plus people; that they speak for Islam. That's their
propaganda. That's how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of
painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war
with an entire religion--then we're doing the terrorists' work for
them.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/14/remarks-
president-after-counter-isil-meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within this context, the Department and the administration continue
to reject the terrorist narrative that the West and Islam are in
conflict, as well as the notion that terrorists like ISIL genuinely
represent Islam. To be successful in our homeland security efforts, we
have to underscore and reinforce the fact that ISIL does not represent
Islam and cannot justify its barbaric terrorism with twisted
interpretations of one of the world's most prominent religions.
The President has also noted that Muslim-American communities have
a role to play in helping counter these narratives and addressing the
perversion of Islam, but it is not the role of those who practice one
faith alone. Every community has a role to play in active citizenry.
While we do so, our civil rights and civil liberties must also be
upheld. Ultimately, our CVE efforts will only be successful with the
participation of all community leaders.
countering on-line recruitment and radicalization to violence
As terrorist groups such as ISIL continue to undertake a deliberate
strategy of using social media to reach into our country and recruit,
radicalize, and mobilize individuals to violence, the private sector's
efforts on this issue have become critical.
As part of supporting efforts to counter terrorist messaging and
recruitment on-line, the Department supports the Peer-To-Peer (P2P):
Challenging Extremism contests. Launched in 2005, P2P is a Government-
sponsored competition to empower students at universities to develop
innovative and powerful social media campaigns that include positive,
alternative, or counter narratives to challenge violent extremism.
Student teams work with a faculty advisor while earning academic credit
to research, design, and launch social media campaigns that have a
measurable impact on their campus, community, and country.
Since its inception in spring 2015, more than 3,000 students
representing 125 university teams from more than 30 countries have
participated in this unique program. In fall 2016, DHS is supporting 50
teams at U.S. colleges and universities, and DHS remains committed to
working with partners across the Government to scale up these domestic
student-designed campaigns and projects.
Facebook became the first technology partner to join the P2P
project in the summer of 2015. As part of the partnership, Facebook
sponsors a competition of the top 3 teams who demonstrate the best
integration of Facebook into their broader digital and social media
campaigns at the Facebook Global Digital Challenge event. Facebook also
provides advertisement credits on their platform to each of the teams
(domestic and international) during the competition. Facebook's
participation has also allowed the initiative to expand to more than
one hundred international teams in fall 2016.
Through the P2P program, we have seen that young people are
essential to our work in creating credible and positive messages that
counter violent extremism. That is why, for example, DHS is currently
working with partners across the Government to scale up domestic
student-designed campaigns and projects. This will require support from
Government, non-Government organizations, and private-sector partners
to transition viable student projects to market.
At the Department, we are aware that there is a limit to the
effectiveness of Government efforts with regard to countering terrorist
recruitment and radicalization to violence, particularly on-line. Local
communities are best positioned to intervene, and they must address
these issues with both on-line and off-line solutions. We at DHS can
act as a facilitator, connector, and convener, but ultimately,
communities and individuals are best positioned to take action to
counter violent extremism.
In addition to supporting the P2P program, the Task Force includes
a team dedicated to communications and digital strategy. The Task Force
builds partnerships with the private sector to identify and amplify
credible voices to counter narratives promoted by ISIL, domestic
terrorists, and other violent extremists. This includes a multi-
platform communications strategy that leverages the use of digital
technologies to engage, empower, and connect CVE stakeholders.
Ultimately, the Department believes that the innovative private
sector that created so many technologies our society enjoys today can
also help create tools to limit terrorists from using these
technologies for terrorist recruitment and radicalization to violence.
We applaud and are encouraged by the private sector's increasing
efforts to address the fraction of their users exploiting their
technologies for nefarious ends. In addition, we recognize the critical
role that the private sector and NGOs can play in continuing their
efforts to develop creative and effective solutions to counter how
terrorists use media platforms for these purposes. Going forward, we
will continue to convene a wide range of disciplines, including civil
society, technology companies, and content producers. We are encouraged
by a number of initiatives underway and applaud those who see the
common challenge terrorism poses and are continuing to take proactive
steps to make it harder for terrorists to operate.
dhs cve grants program
In December 2015, Congress appropriated CVE funds in the fiscal
year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which allocated $10 million in
CVE grant funding to be administered jointly by OCP and FEMA. This is
the first time Federal funding at this level will be provided, on a
competitive basis, specifically to support local CVE programming. And
it is the first Federal assistance program devoted exclusively to
providing local communities with the resources to counter violent
extremism in the homeland. The funding will be competitively awarded to
State, Tribal, territorial, and local governments, nonprofit
organizations, and institutions of higher education to support new and
existing community-based efforts to counter violent extremist
recruitment and radicalization to violence.
The Department formally issued a notice of funding opportunity on
July 6, 2016, announcing the new Countering Violent Extremism Grant
Program. Applications were due September 6, and the response has been
extraordinary. We received over 200 applications from 42 States,
territories, and Washington, DC. Applications are from a broad array of
applicants: Local and State governments; regional coalitions of
governments, both law enforcement and non-law enforcement; universities
and non-profits with a broad spectrum of missions, including peace and
diplomacy, civic engagement, refugee services, and mental health
services; and institutions with religious affiliations, including
multiple faiths and interfaith organizations. As of today, the
anticipated award date will be no later than December 1, 2016.
moving forward
Our efforts to develop a locally-driven, comprehensive, prevention-
based CVE framework remain on-going. We have taken great strides over
recent months to professionalize and institutionalize the CVE
infrastructure of the Department and the U.S. Government as a whole.
However, more work remains.
Preventing future recruits to terrorism has become more important
than ever. A generation ago, individuals may have been radicalized to
violence by someone they knew in person over the course of several
years; now, while that still takes place, it is far more common for
individuals to be radicalized to violence on-line. One example of the
older model in transition is Zachary Chesser, a Virginia native who
pled guilty to supporting terrorists overseas and crimes of violence.
He was a typical suburban Virginia youth: Growing up, he was a good
student and a soccer fan. He radicalized to violence between 2008 and
2010, integrating on-line violent extremist material with in-person
relationships, and the exchange of formal letters.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
CHESSER%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, we now see individuals recruited to fight for ISIL
based on information obtained exclusively on-line. ISIL's deft use of
the internet, together with the wide availability of its messaging, has
broadened the population of potentially vulnerable individuals and
shortened the time span of their recruitment.
conclusion
The recent events in San Bernardino, Orlando, and most recently in
New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota highlight the urgency and severity
of this threat. As such, the CVE efforts undertaken by both the
Department and the CVE Task Force are paramount to address one of the
most significant homeland security challenges facing the Nation.
This is the vision we are working to implement today, through the
important work of building a comprehensive CVE model that ensures safe
and resilient communities in the homeland. Thank you again for the
opportunity to address this critical issue.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Selim.
The Chair now recognizes himself for questioning. As we
discussed before the hearing, you and I, we do have a common
enemy. We in Congress, many Americans, certainly the peaceful
Muslim community, many of us remain frustrated with this
disconnect of verbiage.
With that, earlier this month, the Secretary himself spoke
at ISNA, their annual convention, a group that has been named
in the Holy Land Foundation investigation trial, the largest
terror financing trial in American history, as their keynote
speaker. I don't know how else to put it, but let me ask you
this question.
How can we as Members of Congress and as citizens be sure
that the Department is not using some of this grant money, some
of this $10 million and sending that hard-earned tax money to
questionable organizations such as ISNA or anybody else? How
can we be assured of that?
Mr. Selim. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. Let me
start out by saying I was with the Secretary at that event and
I have personally attended the Islamic Society of North America
convention for many years. It is one of the largest platforms
to conduct outreach and interact with the American Muslim
community. There are over 20,000 attendees.
I am happy to share a version of the remarks that the
Secretary delivered there, and by way of background, he was the
first-ever Cabinet official to address that audience. His
message was widely well-received by those who participated.
In specific regard to your question on ensuring that the
grant funding is appropriately awarded, you know, we have taken
painstaking measures, as is outlined in our notice of funding
opportunity, to ensure a rigorous review and evaluation and
awarding process for ensuring that any award that the
Department is considering making goes through a thorough and
adequate review.
Mr. Perry. So but by way of answering the question it kind-
of leads to more questions about that, and specifically does
that mean--you have attended. It was a great event. It is a
great organization. It is big, et cetera.
Does that mean that ISNA, once again an unindicted co-
conspirator in the largest terror financing trial and finding
in American history, could they receive some of this grant
money?
Mr. Selim. The Islamic Society of North America is as a, if
they are a 501(c)3, I think they are, I have never actually
reviewed their paperwork status. If they are 501(c)3, under the
rules of the notice of funding application, they are eligible
to apply for a grant in this program.
Mr. Perry. I understand they are eligible to apply. Would
they be able--would you grant them the funds? Is there any
prohibition to someone that is involved in terror financing
from receiving hard-earned taxpayer funds?
Mr. Selim. I am not aware of any list in the U.S.
Government of any 501(c)3s that are prohibited from applying
for a Federal grant.
Mr. Perry. So there are no barred individuals or
organizations as you currently know, for any reason?
Mr. Selim. Not just the DHS program, from any Federal grant
program.
Mr. Perry. But we are talking about National security, and
we are talking about known affiliates of terrorist
organizations and terror financing. So that is what--I am
trying to be particular. I understand maybe somebody else does
it, but we are not necessarily concerned about who builds a
sidewalk or beautification, or what have you.
Mr. Selim. Sure.
Mr. Perry. That has nothing to do with National security.
But this does have National security implications. So there is
no known prohibition at this time to any organizations that
might be involved in terror or terror financing from receiving
these taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Selim. What I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, is that
there is a high degree of scrutiny and review for every grant
applicant whether that be a Muslim-affiliated organization or
non-Muslim-affiliated organization. Each and every grant
application that we receive has four degrees of review that it
goes through.
Mr. Perry. I appreciate that. But the fact remains there is
no prohibition, right? Is that what we have established?
Mr. Selim. I am not aware of any----
Mr. Perry. You are not aware of any at least. OK, great. So
what are your metrics to gauge effectiveness? I went through
your testimony, the long form, the long, so to speak, portion
of it, and I have a hard time putting together how we start and
how we finish.
You know, it seems like--I hate to say it, but a lot of
mumbo-jumbo to me. So what are the metrics? How do you
determine whether you are successful? What are we getting as
taxpayers for our $10 million, and how do you determine whether
it is working or not?
Mr. Selim. Thank you for that question. So part of the
metrics are evaluated on an application-by-application, on a
program-by-program basis. Each and every application has a
different set of metrics.
On page 26 of the notice of funding opportunity we lay out,
we lay out 10 clear criteria that each and program must apply
and must meet to even be considered for a potential award. That
includes a range of different factors, which I am happy to go
over in much more detail later, that has measures of
effectiveness, performance measures----
Mr. Perry. Mr. Selim, can you give us a couple examples? My
time has expired. I just want to get an idea of what are some
of those examples of the metric?
Mr. Selim. Sure, so in the categories of potential
applications that we have for training, countering extremist
narratives, and a range of other issues, you know, a successful
application would be implementing a campaign to counter
extremist narratives on-line, developing and implementing a
training or education program for State and local law
enforcement, community----
Mr. Perry. But you understand that is the input. So yes,
they do that. let's say they put a great campaign together for
on-line advertising or whatever.
Mr. Selim. Sure.
Mr. Perry. How do you gauge, what is the deliverable? How
do you gauge whether it was successful? Whether it lowered the
incidence of radicalization or whatever the goal is. How do you
gauge that?
Mr. Selim. So specifically for on-line campaigns, there are
three kind-of core metrics for any kind of on-line campaign.
There is the reach, there is the kind of effect, and there is
the measurement of did we make a particular, you know, set of
individuals who clicked on a particular program and engaged in
it in a certain way. We got them to take some type of measure
to implement a training curriculum at their school, at their
house of worship, at their community-based organization or
others, you know. But many----
Mr. Perry. My time has expired. I appreciate it, but I want
to be respectful. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Selim. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member,
Mrs. Watson Coleman for her questioning.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I need
to agree that I am somewhat confused about whether or not you
are operating, Mr. Selim, with a strategy and with an
implementation strategy. I don't quite understand the criteria
that is being used when you put out the request for the grants
and what you will be looking into. So you have been in
operation for 1 year, right?
Mr. Selim. Just under, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Watson Coleman. During that year, have you done
anything outside of the agency other than putting the agency
together, putting together sort-of the flow of work, who is
responsible for what?
Mr. Selim. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Have you--OK. So you have worked with
outside agencies as Office of Partnerships?
Mr. Selim. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Watson Coleman. OK. So who are you working with and
what are you doing?
Mr. Selim. OK, so I will allow two specific examples, if I
may? In my role as the director of the CVE task force, we have
over 10 Federal departments and agencies who are part of that
effort. My role as the director of the Office of Community
Partnerships, in addition to rolling out one of the fastest
grant programs in the history of Federal grant programs in less
than 6 months, we created and implemented this CVE grant
program. We have conducted a range of other outreach and
engagement opportunities in probably over a dozen States across
the country.
Ms. Watson Coleman. So I want to know, specifically, under
this Office of Community Partnerships, what are you doing out
there in the community? With whom are you doing these things?
Mr. Selim. Two core focus areas. The first area on our
Office of Community Partnerships in DHS is to build bridges
with a range of communities that may be targeted for violent
extremist radicalization.
Ms. Watson Coleman. OK, let's start with that. Who are you
dealing with that, under that sort-of core issue, building
bridges and developing relationships in communities?
Mr. Selim. Sure. So I have three core sets of stakeholders.
One set of stakeholders is State and local law enforcement
across the country. Another set of stakeholders is municipal
officials, mayors, county council members. A third set of
stakeholders, they are NGO, advocacy organization leaders, not-
for-profits and so on.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Talk to me about the community
organizations that you are engaged with. Name some and where
they are located and what you do with them.
Mr. Selim. So two of the members of my office, two of my
employees are located outside of Washington, DC. One of them is
located and works every day in Los Angeles and the other one
works in Denver.
So my staff, who work in Los Angeles for example, on any
given day engage with the mayor's office, engage with Los
Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department, and a range of other advocacy organizations.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Yes. I can find out the government
stuff.
Mr. Selim. OK.
Ms. Watson Coleman. I want to know about the non-government
stuff, the lifting up of communities, the developing
relationships with communities, helping communities to
understand the threats that exist there. What are these
communities? Are they all Muslim communities?
Mr. Selim. No.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Are you doing the same thing for non-
Muslim communities? Where are you doing the work and
specifically with whom?
Mr. Selim. Yes, I----
Ms. Watson Coleman. Other than the governments, not the
municipal government, not the county government, not the State
government. But the NGO's and the community programs that
supposedly exist that you are trying to access to be part of
this countering violent extremism effort.
Mr. Selim. So many of the NGO's that we work with across
the country are, in fact, Muslim or Muslim-affiliated NGO's,
however not exclusively.
Ms. Watson Coleman. All right. OK. Tell me some that you
work with that are not.
Mr. Selim. OK, for example, my staff that work in Denver
and service the entire State of Colorado, work with a range of
different NGO's who are engaged in countering domestic
terrorism of all different forms.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Name them.
Mr. Selim. I don't have that list on me my right now, but I
am happy to provide that for you.
Ms. Watson Coleman. OK, tell me this.
Mr. Selim. There is no secret to the organization.
Ms. Watson Coleman. How many NGO's do you work with and
what percentage of those NGO's are Muslim-focused or Muslim
organizations and how many are not?
Mr. Selim. I think the----
Ms. Watson Coleman. Do you have that information?
Mr. Selim. I don't have it off-hand, but I would offer,
Congresswoman, that at the end of this grant application
period, as I mentioned, we conducted a fair amount of outreach
for this grant solicitation. At the end of this grant
application period, I am happy to work with you and your staff
to make all the NGO's and staffs that applied for this grant
known to you so that we can look at the percentages by
breakdown.
Ms. Watson Coleman. So you received over 200 applications?
Mr. Selim. Correct.
Ms. Watson Coleman. What percentages of those applications
did you receive that were addressed to domestic violence,
counter violence? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Selim. Ma'am, the grant application closed on September
6, I don't have that level of detail breakdown with me today.
But I am happy to supply it to you.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Do you have any idea? Give me, you
know, 70 percent of them are from----
Mr. Selim. I don't off-hand.
Ms. Watson Coleman. OK.
Mr. Selim. We received over 200 applications. I have not
personally reviewed each one yet.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Do you all have any kind of strategy--
and my time is just about up--do you have any kind of strategy
or plan or implementation or whatever to look at the issue of
countering violent extremism from the foreign-inspired,
foreign-directed threat to the United States of America and the
domestic threat?
Mr. Selim. Yes.
Ms. Watson Coleman. OK. When are you going to deliver that
to us so that we understand?
Mr. Selim. Thank you, and I wanted to address that point
that you raised as well as Ranking Member Thompson, and I think
that is a very important point. So as noted, you know, my
office has been in creation for just under 12 months, and I
don't want to give the impression that it is without strategy
or without implementation.
Ms. Watson Coleman. So then we should be getting it rather
soon as opposed to later. So give me some kind of a date,
because you got $10 million that you are considering.
Mr. Selim. Correct.
Ms. Watson Coleman. That it ought to be associated with
some kind of a strategy, that you ought to be looking at the
whole issue from a holistic perspective----
Mr. Selim. Correct.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Not just focusing on one religious
community, but a whole community in the United States of
America that provides that kind of violent threat. Just tell me
when will I get it? When will you send it to Congress?
Mr. Selim. I can assure you, Congresswoman, that I am
committed to working on this issue with you and this committee.
Ms. Watson Coleman. I appreciate that, and I am simply
asking, you have been in business for a whole year.
Mr. Selim. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Watson Coleman. You are telling me that you are
operating under some kind of strategy.
Mr. Selim. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Watson Coleman. When can we see it?
Mr. Selim. I don't have a specific date that I can give you
today, but I can tell you that I am a direct report to
Secretary Johnson. I have clear direction from he and the
Department leadership on how our office should be functioning
and evaluating itself on a day-to-day basis. To the extent that
I am able to quantify that in a strategic document to the
extent that you are asking for one, I am working to deliver
that to you as soon as possible.
Ms. Watson Coleman. We are really concerned that there
needs to be a rationale supported in evidence when you consider
making grants with taxpayers' money. That there are some
metrics in place, that you will be able to evaluate what you
are doing, why you are doing it, and the outcome.
I yield back because I am a little bit over my time. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady from New Jersey.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being here today. This is actually on CSPAN this morning and
this was a topic of conversation by many of the callers,
because we have to take a strong look at terrorism from an
objective standpoint and understand one thing. It is the
individual that carries out an act of terrorism.
Trucks don't just arbitrarily run over people, knives don't
arbitrarily go through malls and stab people, hatchets just
don't jump up and attack law enforcement officers, planes don't
accidentally fly into buildings by themselves. Pressure cookers
don't automatically blow up, killing people. Pipe bombs just
don't place themselves in places. Gun stores just don't erupt
in gunfire.
It is the individual. We have to focus on the individual.
The one thing I do applaud is our effort to identify the reason
that we are having an increase in terrorist activity as well as
potential terrorist activities is the pure volume of
individuals who are seeking to do harm to Americans.
That is through people who are already radicalized coming
in through various means into this Nation, whether it be
through a refugee program or an open border or whatever. There
is a pure volume of people coming into this Nation seeking to
do harm.
The other aspect of that which, I think, is more difficult
to grab hold of are American citizens being radicalized who do
have some Constitutional protections, which make it harder on
our law enforcement. I applaud you in trying to do that.
My questions really evolve around how do we counter the
radicalization process? What is the purpose of the--how do you
actually do your job? Is the purpose intervention, to stop the
radicalization process? Is it to identify those who are being
radicalized, to put them on a watch list? How is it--what is
the function of the office? How are you gonna carry this out?
Mr. Selim. Thank you for that question, Congressman. Three
core areas I want to focus on to answer your question. When I
reference in my oral statement attempting to prevent and
intervene in the process of radicalization, that falls into one
of three buckets of action.
First is that we are gonna raise awareness on the nature
and scope of radicalization and recruitment in the homeland so
that State and local government, community faith leaders,
municipal leaders and so on can recognize what those signs look
like. It is not always inherent.
The second bucket for DHS is to supply tools and resources
to State, local, and community-based partners, whether it is a
grant program, a community awareness briefing, a training
exercise, a tabletop so that we can actually walk through what
to look like and when to raise something to authorities and so
on.
Then the third category, which is the title of my office,
the Office for Community Partnerships, is to build and sustain
the long-term partnerships between municipal officials, Federal
law enforcement, community-based leaders and so on, so that
that type of dialog and interaction between a range of
different sectors can be comprehensively applied.
Mr. Loudermilk. So when you identify someone who is
potentially being radicalized--and I really believe this is a
local issue. It is no longer a Federal issue. The Federal
Government is not very good at working in the local area. We
gotta remove barriers to let the local law enforcement, local
officials be engaged in this. I think the people trust their
local governments, obviously, more than the Federal Government.
Mr. Selim. I completely agree, sir.
Mr. Loudermilk. So what do you do when--all right. We see a
young person that is in process of being radicalized. What do
you do? That is what I am looking for.
Mr. Selim. So----
Mr. Loudermilk. What action are we taking at that point?
Mr. Selim. So this is the complexity around radicalization.
It is not a black or white issue. It is not this person is
definitely being radicalized. That is what makes some of those
cases that we have seen in recent years so difficult for law
enforcement and our intelligence agencies to detect.
That is why we are supplying the specific information,
training tools, and resources at the local level. I am in
complete agreement with you that this must be a locally-led
initiative.
Mr. Loudermilk. It has to go further because I think it
would be a great gift to us if, let's say, a parent----
Mr. Selim. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. Would approach the FBI and
say, ``My son is showing signs of radicalization'' or ``My son
is a terrorist.'' Would you agree?
Mr. Selim. I would absolutely agree.
Mr. Loudermilk. Didn't that just happen in New York City?
Mr. Selim. I am not sure of all the specifics of the case.
I believe that the----
Mr. Loudermilk. I believe the parent came to the FBI and
said, ``My son is a terrorist.''
Mr. Selim. Yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. So what I am saying is, our intervention
has to be better than it is today. We have to take that to the
next level. I am in support of the efforts that we are trying
to do. But do we have any evidence that intervention--have we
had any successes in actually countering the radicalization
process?
Mr. Selim. Congressman, I am in complete agreement with the
facts as you have stated them. I would just offer that, in
attempting to develop this path of countering violent extremism
that I have laid out, the director of the FBI, the director of
Homeland Security, and others have said numerous times we are
not going to arrest our way out of this threat.
We have to have a number of alternatives. That is what the
CVE focus is, is getting community leaders, local officials,
and so on to have early indications of the potential of
radicalization and have options other than just call the FBI.
Mr. Loudermilk. But do we have any success? Can you point
to where countering the violent extremism has actually reversed
a radicalization process or resulted in a stopping?
Mr. Selim. Yes, part of the difficult part of answering
that question is you are really asking to measure a negative.
But I know anecdotally in cities across the United States,
young people who have witnessed some type of, who have exposure
to violence or trauma and have a potential propensity to
violence in some way, that has been raised up to school or
religious or local law enforcement officials. They have been
taken off that path.
That has been happening anecdotally in a range of cities
across the country. I can't sit here before you today and
definitively say that person was gonna commit an act of
terrorism with a pressure cooker bomb. But we are developing
that prevention framework in a range of cities across the
country, and that is the focus of our plan.
Mr. Loudermilk. I am looking for effectiveness, because
quite often we build programs and it is a black hole of money
to dump into. In the line of the questioning that the Chairman
had, I do have concerns about NGO's that we are going to
partner in. Where is this money going to go?
To follow up with some of the things he was getting to, who
determines these guidelines for what organizations you would
actually contract with or work with? Who makes that final
decision?
Mr. Selim. Ultimately, sir, as laid out in the notice of
funding opportunity, the Secretary of Homeland Security has
final say.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do you have a list of folks you would not
do work with?
Mr. Selim. As I noted earlier, sir, there is not in the
Federal Government a list of NGO's that are prohibited from
applying for a Federal grant.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do we know of NGO's who are engaged in
anti-American activities?
Mr. Selim. Do we have a list of NGO's----
Mr. Loudermilk. Do we know of organizations out there that
are engaged?
Mr. Selim. I would defer that question to the law
enforcement agencies and intelligence partners. But I think
there is a pretty keen understanding of--if there is an
organization in the United States that is conducting any type
of criminal or counterterrorism activity, I am fairly certain
that is probably on the FBI's radar.
Mr. Loudermilk. So I would think that we do know of
organizations who are engaged in anti-American activities, that
we would want to have a list of those we definitely would not
engage in. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I have exceeded my time.
Mr. Selim. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kinda pursuing the
line of questioning. Mr. Selim, you said that your effort is to
develop a locally-driven, comprehensive, prevention-based CVE
framework. Can you kinda explain how you can do that when you
don't have a strategy or implementation plan?
Mr. Selim. Yes, Ranking Member Thompson, thank you for that
question. So a prevention framework in a particular
metropolitan or geographic area in the United States, they all
look very different. A prevention framework in a city like
Boston looks very different than a prevention framework looks
like in Los Angeles. What we are doing is we are applying----
Mr. Thompson. I understand. But you gotta have an overall
framework to operate from. You can apply it to whatever
community. But I am talking about a plan and a strategy. Do you
have one?
Mr. Selim. We do.
Mr. Thompson. Can you provide this committee, in writing,
both the plan and strategy?
Mr. Selim. I am working diligently to get this committee,
with the greatest amount of expediency I possibly can do to get
you that plan.
Mr. Thompson. So either you do or you don't, now. Come on
now.
Mr. Selim. I am sorry?
Mr. Thompson. Do you have it?
Mr. Selim. We have a plan of direction.
Mr. Thompson. And strategy?
Mr. Selim. Strategy. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Both?
Mr. Selim. We have a strategic plan----
Mr. Thompson. Don't----
Mr. Selim [continuing]. For countering violent extremism at
the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Thompson. Look, look, I understand. But I am talking
about your shop.
Mr. Selim. My office.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Selim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You had a plan and a strategy?
Mr. Selim. We do. We do.
Mr. Thompson. When can we get it?
Mr. Selim. I will be happy to work with you and staff to
get that as soon as possible.
Mr. Thompson. Ah, no, now, I mean, if you have got it, send
somebody, out for it right now.
Mr. Selim. I am not at liberty to do it at this very
moment, but----
Mr. Thompson. Why?
Mr. Selim. Why?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Selim. Because I am testifying in front of this
committee.
Mr. Thompson. Don't be facetious, brother. Either the plan
exists or it doesn't. If it exists, then one of your aides you
have out here--tell them go get the plan for the committee. Or
can we get it this afternoon, in the morning or whenever?
Mr. Selim. Sir, by no means am I trying to get around
providing this to the committee. What I am working to do and
what I have been working to do for the past several weeks is
ensure that the strategic plan that we provide this committee,
including your staff, is up to the highest level of standards.
Developing a plan that will----
Mr. Thompson. Wait now. I understand inside-the-Beltway
talk. So just make it as plain and simple. When can we get the
plan? Whether it is 50 percent complete--you told us it is
ready. All I am trying to do is----
Mr. Selim. Nearly ready.
Mr. Thompson. Oh. It is nearly ready now.
Mr. Selim. Yes, sir. Ranking Member----
Mr. Thompson. I understand. Well, I am disappointed
because--but we will go on. You talked about the balance that
your shop is trying to do. Can you name me five NGO's that you
working with right now?
Mr. Selim. Five NGO's that are conducting efforts to
counter violent extremism in the United States?
Mr. Thompson. That your office is working with.
Mr. Selim. Sure. One organization, Life After Hate.
Mr. Thompson. All right.
Mr. Selim. Two organizations, Project CeaseFire in Chicago.
Mr. Thompson. All right.
Mr. Selim. No. 3, Muflihun, which is a Muslim-based
organization here in northern Virginia. No. 3--is that No. 4?
WORDE Organization, World Resource and Development Organization
based in Montgomery County, Maryland. And No. 5, there is an
NGO which name eludes me at the moment in Los Angeles.
Mr. Thompson. All right. Now, you have named four. I want
you to provide this committee----
Mr. Selim. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. With whatever that engagement
has been up to this point in writing.
Mr. Selim. Absolutely.
Mr. Thompson. OK. Third, are you aware that domestic
terrorists' threat in this country, as documented by a number
of sources, comes more from the right-wing elements in this
country rather than the left or the Muslim threat or anything
like that?
Mr. Selim. I have seen some of that data, but I am not a
gun or violence expert in that regard.
Mr. Thompson. I didn't say gun or violent. I am saying the
threat, the threat.
Mr. Selim. I am wholly aware of the range of ideologies
that motivate violence in the United States.
Mr. Thompson. So based on your professional position----
Mr. Selim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Where do you see the most
violent threat existing in this country today?
Mr. Selim. As the Secretary of Homeland Security has
testified at this table, the preeminent threat to our homeland
security today is ISIL's ability to recruit and radicalize.
Mr. Thompson. You know, I don't want you to split hairs,
the facts irrefutable before this committee says just the
opposite, absolutely the opposite. So I am really disappointed
that you come before this committee ill-prepared to answer the
questions.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Clawson.
Mr. Clawson. I yield my time back to the Chairman, Mr.
Perry.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. Selim, under the headline, under the banner of
countering violent extremism, would you consider white
supremacist extremism under your umbrella of threats to deal
with?
Mr. Selim. Mr. Chairman, we define violent extremism in the
Executive branch as ideologically-motivated violence to further
political goals, irrespective of what the ideology is. It could
be domestic in nature or it could be foreign-inspired in
nature.
Mr. Perry. OK. Let me use another term that--would you
consider the Ku Klux Klan someone that you or your organization
would wish to deal with in countering violent extremism?
Mr. Selim. I don't think the DHS Office of Community
Partnerships wishes to deal with the Ku Klux Klan, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Perry. I didn't say deal with them as in deal with them
in working some kind of an agreement with them, but the things
that they espouse. Is that a problem in our country that you
would fall under the scope of your purview?
Mr. Selim. To the extent that any organization, either
foreign or domestic, espouses violence in the United States,
that----
Mr. Perry. Have they not espoused violence in the past?
Mr. Selim. Has the Ku Klux Klan?
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Selim. Absolutely they have.
Mr. Perry. OK. So shouldn't they--so I am just trying to
figure out if they fall under the umbrella of your purview.
Mr. Selim. Ideologically-motivated violence, whether that
be----
Mr. Perry. Are they not ideologically motivated?
Mr. Selim. I believe they are.
Mr. Perry. OK. So it seems to me they fit all the
requirements. I am just trying to get a simple indication
that--of whether we are trying to figure out what you consider
CVE. Maybe I know. Maybe Mr. Thompson knows what he considers
it to be. We are trying to figure out what you consider it to
be, so we are giving you examples. I used this one.
Based on that, based on the information that you just
provided--ideological history of violence, would they fall
under that--within your purview based on your definition, your
guidelines, your mission?
Mr. Selim. To the extent that an applicant for the
Countering Violent Extremism Grant Program wants to institute
some type of program to counter the ability for a Ku Klux Klan
or any other organization to espouse the type of violence that
they have done historically, that would absolutely fit within
the remit of our office.
Mr. Perry. OK. So you are talking about the grant program
and applicants that say, look, we want to deal with--when I say
deal with in the context of we want to minimize the effect,
influence of an organization that is a white supremacist
organization, such as the Ku Klux Klan, that would be something
you would be interested in engaging in?
Mr. Selim. Again, nothing in my office, the Office of
Community Partnerships, or in this grant program, there is no
targeting of a specific group. This is why when we talk about
countering violent extremism, this is a threat-based effort,
right? There is an immediate threat in the homeland today----
Mr. Perry. Right.
Mr. Selim [continuing]. By enemies of the United States,
sworn enemies of the United States, to recruit and radicalize
here in the homeland. What this office's mission and what the
resources we are putting out are for are to prevent and
intervene in that process of radicalization, sir.
Mr. Perry. So there is no thought whatsoever to different
organizations that are known--that are known by most Americans,
certainly by the records, to have an ideological interest in
and use violence to promote their political objectives. As long
as it has a name to it, you don't look at the name. You just
look at any--anybody.
Mr. Selim. We are--I apologize. I misunderstood the
question. Let me draw a clear distinction. We are not an office
that does analysis on hate or different terrorist
organizations.
My office is purely focused on--again, as I laid out
earlier, developing and building the partnerships with
communities across the country and the range of stakeholders
that I laid out, as well as----
Mr. Perry. Well, goodness, I don't know how you direct your
resources if you have no idea where you are headed. You don't
even--if you don't know where you are going, how do you know
where to direct your resources? You can't name one--I just gave
you an organization and you essentially said, no, they are not
one of the--I----
Mr. Selim. We are not focused on specific organizations.
Mr. Perry. But what are you focused on?
Mr. Selim. We are focused on providing tools and resources
to Federal, State, local, and community partners who are
themselves, as the Congressman alluded to earlier, on the front
lines of preventing radicalization and----
Mr. Perry. By who? Radicalization by who?
Mr. Selim. You know, different, different--it is not the
place of my office to tell a police chief or sheriff in
Cleveland, Ohio or Los Angeles, California how they should be
driving and implementing their own program. This is why, as
part of the grant program, there is a very specific needs
analysis and a quantitative set of metrics that speak to how
these programs will be applied.
Mr. Perry. So even being fully aware of the actions of
certain entities, whether domestic, whether racist, whether
religiously motivated if that terminology can be used, it makes
no difference to you. And you wouldn't be able to identify them
and place your assets in that direction to have the greatest
effect----
Mr. Selim. Let me----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Based on this paradigm that you
just laid out for me?
Mr. Selim. Let me just go back and be very clear on one
thing. The Department of Homeland Security, including my
office, assesses that the preeminent threat to our homeland
security today is ISIL's ability to recruit and radicalize in
the homeland.
Mr. Perry. So you do differentiate with ISIS or ISIL. Not
this other one that I mentioned, but ISIL you do make that
distinction.
Mr. Selim. We differentiate in the sense of the threat of
terrorism in the United States.
Mr. Perry. All right. I think I am gonna come back to you,
Mr. Selim. I have got some further questions based on the
information I just gleaned from you, but my time has expired
and I want to respect the other Members' time in attendance
here.
So I will now yield and the gentleman--correction. The
gentlelady. Correction. She has left. The gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, is now recognized.
Mr. Ellison. Yes, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, allow me to
thank you for being here today. I am grateful for the
opportunity. I want to just confer how much respect I have for
this very important committee.
Let me say this. If I were to say the words radical
Islamist terrorists, it wouldn't stop--it wouldn't make ISIS
vanish. Use of the words is not the thing. Here is the thing.
Organizations like Daesh and ISIS are homicidal maniacs trying
to kill us. We know that. They don't care what religion we are.
They will harm us all.
But they are also--they are not stupid. They are trying to
gain legitimacy in the eyes of people they are trying to
recruit.
Now, maybe in a country like our own where I was born and
raised--and I am 14 generations in the United States, which is
a majority Christian country--my mother, all my family members
are Christian. I love them deeply. I love my whole community.
To say that Islam has got tremendous legitimacy, we might
not recognize that because of the environment we are in. But in
the nations where it does predominate, which is 1.5 billion
people in this world, putting the word Islamic in your title
does confer legitimacy.
Just as if I were to call--a group were to call themselves
the Christian so-and-so-and-so's, people in America and other
Christian-majority countries would think, well, they are
probably good guys, 'cause we associate that with that word.
Now, if the Ku Klux Klan were to burn crosses and claim to
be associated with Christianity, we would know what they were
doing is trying to exploit the majority of the population's
attachment to that term in order to gain support, when what
they really want to do is murder, kill, and terrorize black
people.
This is exactly what Daesh is doing, which is why we don't
call them Islamic terrorists, Muslim terrorists. They hope we
call them that. They want us to call them that. Whenever we
call them that, there is some unsuspecting person out there who
might be tricked into believing that they actually stand for
Islam. That doesn't help America.
We should be trying to expand our friendships and isolate
our enemies. Instead, by saying no Muslims can come into the
country, lying about saying that Muslims were happy after 9/11,
which they absolutely were not, proven in multiple
environments, all we do is help Daesh recruit.
Now, I know about Daesh recruitment. They had me in a
magazine saying they wanted to kill me personally by name. So,
you know, this idea that just saying radical Islamist terrorist
is somehow going to do anything, it is not going to do anything
other than help ISIS recruit.
I don't want to help ISIS recruit. I want to strip them of
any legitimacy that they have. I think that we all should join
in that. Absolutely we should be researching their core
ideology and motivation. Nothing about calling them extremists,
violent extremists stops us from doing that. Absolutely we
should understand how they think and what motivates them.
If they pervert religious verses in order to do what they
want to do, we should certainly--and research that. But I am
not going to say that Timothy McVeigh is a freedom fighter. He
is not. He is a terrorist. I am not going to say that Daesh is
Islamic. There is neither a State, nor they are Islamic. They
are criminal, and they need to be treated like that.
Let me move on to say that--it was said that--there was a
question--I think there was some question that said that we
should perhaps prohibit the Islamic Society of North America
from being able to apply for a grant or getting a grant.
I have been to Islamic Society of North America
organizations. I think that they are an excellent group. I
don't see any problem with them. I am glad that our Government
is reaching out to them.
I can tell you that if ISIS is recruiting and the American
Government is recruiting, we better be talking to people who we
can get on our side as opposed to shunning them. It would be a
bad idea to do that. It would not help us protect our country.
Let me say, if we were to prohibit ISNA, I think we would be
engaging in unconstitutional behavior because there is
something called a bill of attainder.
A bill of attainder says you cannot pass a law
criminalizing somebody. People get trials in America, which
brings me to a point about this unindicted co-conspirator. As a
person who must have tried 50 cases to a jury--I used to be a
public defender, I know. I may not know love, but I know
criminal--I know how to try a case in court.
Unindicted co-conspirator means unindicted. If they were
indicted, then now you are talking. But even then, that is just
a very low threshold of probable cause. But unindicted means
nothing. It means absolutely nothing.
If any one of us were unindicted co-conspirators, you know
what that would mean? That we are innocent. So to use that term
to try to eliminate people is just bad, it is just a
misunderstanding of what the law is.
So finally, I just want to say thank you to you, Mr. Selim,
for coming to my community, talking to my community about how
we forge better ties and trust and communication so people know
and understand that the American government is not against
them.
We want to be engaged. We want to talk. They criticized you
a little bit, and you took it all, and you listened. Then you
said your job is to work with the community to protect the
community. So I want to thank you for keeping your ears open
and your mind open. In Minneapolis, I think you did a good job.
Mr. Selim. Thank you. Can I make just one point to that
remark, Mr. Chairman?
Congressman Ellison, I want to thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to come to your district and work with you and
your team on that.
I want to make one point clear to the entire committee
that, on the programs and measures that my office implements on
a day-to-day basis, there is not uniform agreement in
communities, Muslim communities or non-Muslim communities, on
the best way to do this.
I think what Congressman Ellison is referring to or
inferring, actually, is that there was some pushback on the
programs that my office has espoused and implemented.
However, you know, the degree to which myself as the
director and my team sits and engages with community
stakeholders in a constructive dialog, and we can shape and
tailor our programs for maximum effectiveness, that is the
ultimate message that I want to convey today to the committee,
is that we are at the table. We look to be at the table in
communities across the country to shape and tailor these
initiatives.
I get calls and e-mails all the time from communities
saying ISIL, Daesh, or some other terrorist organization does
not represent our religion, our community, or our faith. What
can we do? So, the CVE programs that we are implementing are
voluntary in nature. We are servicing community and local
stakeholders who want to implement these initiatives.
That is a very important part. This is not a prescription.
We are not requiring any group to do that. Some people in the
Twin Cities, in the Minneapolis area, want to have a seat at
the table for this. Others do not.
That is fine. Our job as the Federal Government, as DHS, is
to work with those who want to be at the table and also address
concerns of those that don't want to be involved in these
initiatives and have concerns about the programs. Thank you for
that.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman Mr. Pascrell from New
Jersey.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having
the hearing. I think it is very worthwhile. I want to say hello
to the Ranking Member, and the Ranking Member on this
committee, subcommittee.
Mr. Selim, I know your record. You came from the last
administration. I thank you for your service to your country.
But when you are--a little advice. You don't need it from me,
but let me give it anyway. When you are answering questions
from this committee, I would advise you, when we are talking
about the causes of radicalization, when we were talking about
that, you used the word metrics many, many times.
When you are using the word metrics, you are not being
straight with the committee, and I am sure you are not doing it
intentionally. Metrics is a good word we like to use to throw
people into a dizzy. Just be straight about your answers,
whether you have the information or you don't have the
information.
So the recent events in Jersey and New York underscore how
the threat of violent extremism has evolved, Charleston,
Dallas, Oak Creek. We have seen an uptick, Mr. Chairman, in
instances of home-grown violent extremism.
So it is critical we ensure the government is working to
prevent the spread of violent extremists' ideology by using the
limited resources wisely. As you briefly noted in your
testimony, and despite common misperceptions from what you
often hear in the media, extremists and threats come from a
wide range of groups and individuals.
I have known and talked about the threat of domestic
terrorism, usually in the form of anti-Government extremism in
this country. My oath of office, the priority, I am pledged to
stop foreign and domestic intrusions. It is the first part of
my oath of office, as well as the President of the United
States.
What threat has been posed here? Ever since I was the
original Member of the House Homeland Security Committee when
it was created. In 2009, a DHS report on right-wing extremism
was leaked and prompted an outcry. Resulted in the DHS cutting
a number of personnel studying, for the record, domestic
terrorism unrelated to Islam, and held up nearly a dozen
reports on extremist groups.
I spoke out very strongly against this decision. It was
carried over into this administration's decision. We cannot
allow people to silence facts just because the facts do not fit
their preferred narrative of who we should and shouldn't be
afraid of and concerned about.
Eric Hoffer wrote in his book ``The True Believer,'' which
is my bible about radical thoughts, radical actions against our
Nation. We want to protect those people that voted for us,
didn't vote for us but live in our district and live in this
country.
We had three police folks that testified yesterday. I was
not here, but I know what they said. Deputy Chief Miller from
New York, New York City. Those guys and gals do a terrific job
day-in and day-out, and you said it one--better than I did in
your testimony. My job is to protect them. See, anybody who we
decide is going to protect us, we have to protect them.
Mr. Chairman, I have to take exception to one thing that
you said before. I agreed with most of the stuff you were
talking about. You said, you questioned, and I think you have a
right to, the heart of the issue, went right to the heart of
the issue about National security.
Why should we be perhaps providing dollars to terrorist
groups? I hope these groups are being vetted. I am sure you do,
too. Well, then why do we allow guns to go to terrorists? So we
don't want them to get the dollars, but we allow them at the
same time to buy weapons.
That is not a slippery slope to defining or destroying the
Second Amendment of the United States. It is protecting our law
enforcement officers who are outgunned in the streets,
regardless of what we are talking about, the gangs, or we are
talking about the gangs of terrorism.
I beg you to think about this in that terms. I agree with
you. We don't want to give money to those folks who we gotta
really question, wonder where you are going to spend the money.
We do that many times in our foreign aid, don't we? I ask you
just to take an objective look at that thing. If I may--I am
going over--can I ask the witness one question?
Mr. Perry. Go ahead.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
Mr. Selim, in March of this year we sent a letter--I sent a
letter to Secretary Johnson and Attorney General Lynch. The CVE
task force announced--and since you are here today, I would
like to discuss its goals.
Here is my question. According to the New America
Foundation, there have been more incidents of right-wing
extremist attacks in the United States than violent jihadist
attacks since 9/11. I am not minimizing jihadist attacks.
In that light, can you describe how your office plans to
counter violent extremism with respect to domestic right-wing
extremism? If you want me to define it over the last 15 years,
I will go chapter and verse, but you know what I am talking
about. How do you define it, and what is your office doing
about it? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. Selim. So, Congressman, thank you for that question. On
the oath of office that I took in this job--to the point you
made on the oath that you took in your job. As the oath I took
when I was sworn into the United States Navy, I similarly took
a pledge to defend and protect the Constitution and the United
States against all threats, foreign and domestic. I want to
assure you that I take that oath very seriously. That is, I
hope, reflected in the job that I am doing on a day-to-day
basis.
With specific regard to your question in what we are doing,
the role of the CVE task force is one to coordinate all the
different CVE efforts across departments and agencies. It is
not a operational body per se. The task force is not deploying
into a particular city and doing things like that. It is a
Washington-based body to coordinate all the disparate resources
that are currently existing in different departments and
agencies.
The tools and resources that we supply to our State, local,
and community-based partners related to CVE are ones that can
hopefully prevent and intervene in the process of
radicalization, whether it is a domestic extremist
radicalization or an international terrorist organization that
is attempting to recruit and radicalize.
The research and the data has shown us--and I am happy to
follow up with you on this in great detail--is that the
similarities of paths of radicalization of someone who will
commit an act of terrorism in the homeland is very similar,
whether they are a Timothy McVeigh or whether they are a young
person in this country that is being recruited and radicalized
by a group like ISIL.
What we are attempting to do is supply tools and resources
at the State and local level for local officials, community
partners, and municipal leaders to prevent and intervene and
recognize those signs, irrespective of where it is motivated
on.
So there is not a special focus on D.T. and a different
focus on international-related terrorism. The tools and
opportunities to prevent and intervene in that process can
equally be applied on both.
Mr. Pascrell. Are you supplying the information to the
subcommittee?
Mr. Selim. I am attempting to.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, I think that is critical, Mr. Chairman,
so we know where we are going. I thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, be allowed to sit on the dais,
participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
committee for your fine work. Obviously, we have been doing
some parallel work in the committee that I sit on. So let me
follow up on this last question, because it is intriguing, with
my colleague opposite here, in terms of his definition, quoting
some group.
We just had a hearing just the other day which had said
that most of the threats that we are actually facing here--not
to underscore some of the horrific things that have happened in
South Carolina and in other areas, but we have been trained
over the years--our law enforcement has been trained to be able
to address those kinds of threats that the gentleman would say
are right-wing extremists.
Yet the numbers don't seem to back that up. I mean, it
wasn't right-wing extremists that stabbed someone in Minnesota
this week. It wasn't right-wing extremists that exploded bombs
in New Jersey and New York.
So when we look at that--in fact, the No. 1 stat that I saw
was actually the Taliban was higher than ISIS, even though ISIS
kinda dominates this. So what stats do you have, since you have
been working on this, that would suggest that the No. 1 threat
are right-wing extremists and not the radicalization of others?
Mr. Selim. Congressman, I want to clarify a point. I hope
in no way, shape, or form did I give the impression that the
threat of domestic extremism by the groups you just mentioned
are more severe than that of ISIS. I have said----
Mr. Meadows. Well----
Mr. Selim. I have said repeatedly----
Mr. Meadows [continuing]. Kind-of indirectly. You said
that, you know, you are here to defend the country. I
appreciate your service as a naval officer. I appreciate your
willingness to defend the Constitution.
But here is--what we haven't done is actually many times
define the enemy. It is critical that we start to do that. So
with the CVE joint task force. Name four or five
accomplishments that have happened since January 2016. What are
the accomplishments?
Mr. Selim. So just to clarify time line. The task force was
announced in January, but we didn't actually come together with
interagency representatives until April of this past year.
Mr. Meadows. So name three accomplishments since April.
Mr. Selim. Just to clarify the time line. So there has been
a number of accomplishments. The first is that there are a
number of different entities across the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the National
Counterterrorism Center that were reaching out to State, local,
community, and municipal officials to provide different
products, threat briefings, exercises and so on.
Mr. Meadows. So how many of those have you done?
Mr. Selim. As an office, I would have to go back and get
you the specific number. But the point on the accomplishment--
--
Mr. Meadows. More than 100? Less than 100?
Mr. Selim. In the past year? Probably. But I can give you
the specific number.
Mr. Meadows. But you can report back to the subcommittee?
Mr. Selim. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Meadows. OK. All right.
Mr. Selim. The point on the accomplishment is we have tied
that all together in one place. So when there is a request for
some type of training or assistance in that regard, we have a
specific group focused on training and engagement that is
focused just on synchronizing that and ensuring we are getting
the best products and delivery out to State and local
officials.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I guess according to the testimony,
it says that the CVE grant funding is done through a
competitive panel-review application process. I think----
Mr. Selim. Yes, sir----
Mr. Meadows [continuing]. That is a quote.
Mr. Selim. Correct.
Mr. Meadows. So what are the criteria for evaluating?
Mr. Selim. So I don't want to take up your time here on the
panel. We have listed out on page 26 of the notice of funding
here 10 clear objective criteria that every potential applicant
has to----
Mr. Meadows. So what is the top one out of the 10?
Mr. Selim. Demonstrating expertise.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So how do you determine--who
determines that they have expertise?
Mr. Selim. Each and every application is independently
reviewed by one of four people. An individual who works for me
in the Office of Community Partnerships reviews and scores
independently each application.
An interagency representative from the CVE Taskforce,
someone from the FBI, DOJ, the National Counterterrorism
Center. Including non-security agencies, education, HHS, and
others that are part of this whole-of-Government effort. They
independently score and review each application.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
Mr. Selim. FEMA--sorry.
Mr. Meadows. Yes, so let me interrupt because I got 36
seconds left.
So as we look at that, as you start to evaluate those, how
do you respond to some of the criticism that has been out there
that potentially grants go to groups that may not be fully
aligned with protecting our National security interests? Is
that a valid criticism?
Mr. Selim. Congressman, I can assure you that I take the
awarding of Federal grants, taxpayer dollars, with the utmost
seriousness. Doing the due diligence----
Mr. Meadows. Have you made any mistakes?
Mr. Selim [continuing]. Through this process--sorry.
Mr. Meadows. Have you--have you made any mistakes?
Mr. Selim. Ever in my life?
Mr. Meadows. Well, in this process. No, obviously--I am
married. I get reminded of that on a regular basis, so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Selim. I would say that this is the first time that
we--this is the first time ever, as I pointed out in my oral
statement, that such a great opportunity has existed in the
U.S. Government.
So it is a learning process. Some of the things that we are
doing in this first fiscal year 2016 period I will likely
change and amend for fiscal year 2017, just based on the
feedback that we have received from our potential applicants.
So there is always room to improve the process.
Mr. Meadows. So with the Chairman's indulgence, I will ask
my last question and yield back. Is if you were to put two
different groups that we have to be most concerned about
radicalizing individuals here in the United States, who would
those two groups be?
Mr. Selim. ISIL is the preeminent threat in the United
States to our homeland security.
Mr. Meadows. Who is the second?
Mr. Selim. Any al-Qaeda or similarly-aligned Sunni
extremist group.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair thanks
the witness for his valuable testimony and the Members for
their questions.
The first panel is now excused. The clerk will prepare the
witness table for the second panel.
Mr. Perry. The Chair will now introduce our witnesses for
the second panel.
The Honorable Peter Hoekstra served in Congress for 18
years representing Michigan's 2nd Congressional District from
1993 to 2011. He was the Chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence from 2004 through January 2007.
He was responsible for leading Congressional oversight of
the U.S. intelligence community to confront the threats of the
21st Century, such as global Islamist terror and cyber warfare,
including restructuring the intelligence community with
landmark legislation following the 9/11 Commission Report.
He now serves as the Shillman senior fellow with the
Investigative Project on Terrorism and is a frequent
commentator and writer on radical Islam.
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and president of the
American Islamic Forum for Democracy. The forum seeks to
counter political Islam, the ideology that fuels radical
Islamists. Dr. Jasser was appointed to the United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom in 2012. He has
testified before Congressional committees on numerous
occasions.
Dr. Jasser served 11 years as a medical officer in the U.S.
Navy and is a past president of the Arizona Medical
Association. We thank you for your service, sir.
Ms. Sahar Aziz, do I have the first name correct, ma'am?
Thank you--is a professor of law at Texas A&M University School
of Law, where she teaches courses on National security, civil
rights, and Middle East law. Ms. Aziz is also a non-resident
fellow at the Brookings Doha Center. Prior to joining Texas
A&M, she served as a senior policy adviser for DHS' Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Ms. Shireen Qudosi is an author, including a senior
contributor at counterjihad.com and the founder of the Qudosi
Chronicles, a blog about Islam in the 21st Century which
supports Muslim reformers. For over 10 years, she has been an
active advocate of progressive Islam, both educating non-
Muslims about Islam and encouraging Muslims to engage in
dialog. She has been recognized as one of the top 10 North
American Muslim reformers.
Thank you all for being here today.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hoekstra for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER HOEKSTRA, FORMER CHAIRMAN, HOUSE
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Hoekstra. It has been a while since I have been here.
So thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Coleman, other
distinguished Members of the panel for enabling me to testify
here today.
Since I left Congress, I have had the opportunity to work
with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. This has been a
leading organization studying the threat of radical Islam for
over 20 years. It has always been at the forefront. I would
like to submit my testimony for the record.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hoekstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, there are
just a couple of points that I would like to highlight as we go
through the testimony. I would like to--that I think are
important.
No. 1, the trend lines in the war have not been going in
the right direction. You know, recently the University of
Maryland completed a study that showed that back in 2001,
roughly 2,500 people per year were losing their lives as a
result of radical jihadist terrorist activities.
In 2007, 2008, 2009, that number had gone from roughly
2,500--I think we have a chart to show that--had gone from
roughly 2,500 to about 3,000, 3,300 in that time frame. So it
was a significant increase, but not dramatic. But then take a
look at the line what happens after 2008 to 2015, and what we
are projecting for 2016.
That number has increased from roughly, you know, slightly
over 3,000 people per year to approaching 30,000 people per
year losing their lives globally as a result of radical
jihadism.
The second slide that I will use that will be up there
shows what the spread of radical jihadism has been, the global
expansion--2001, you could look at the globe and it would be in
a number of different places. Two thousand nine, 2010, it was
kinda concentrated in the Middle East.
But the threat that we see evolving and where we see the
threat today, is we see it obviously in the Middle East. We see
it in Northern Africa. It is now spreading into Asia. We also
see what is happening in Europe and obviously the United States
is at risk. So the numbers and the trend line are clearly
heading in the wrong direction. The geographic spread of the
threat from radical jihadism is going in the wrong direction.
This is a war that we are not winning today. We are not
containing it, we are not confronting it, and we are not
defeating it. The key question, I think, that Congress needs to
ask is what has happened, potentially, to create this dramatic
increase since 2008?
From 2001 to 2008, 2009, you know, it stayed relatively
contained. But since that time we have seen it escalate--
escalate significantly. We now have five failed States that are
havens for radical jihadists, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and
Afghanistan.
So this is places where these organizations can plan. They
can train. They can prepare to launch attacks against the West,
against America, and other places in the Middle East.
I really encourage the committee to take a very, very hard
look, an in-depth dive on what is called PSD-11, Presidential
Study Directive 11. This came out of--it is still Classified,
but there has been a lot written about this document in the
media. So it has been leaked to various people. But what PSD-11
does is it fundamentally changed America's approach toward the
Muslim world.
For 40 years, on a bipartisan basis, Republican and
Democratic administrations had said our goal in the Middle East
was stability and security--2010, 2011 time frame, the
President and his administration said that that policy was--
they were going to take a look at it. David Ignatius, in one of
the columns that he wrote back then, indicated that a White
House official said, ``We are rolling the dice.''
Well, it didn't turn out very well, because the strategy
now said we were going to engage with elements of reform. Well,
that ended up being organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood
and other radical jihadist groups. We did not choose wisely.
In Egypt, we facilitated the overthrow of Mubarak, someone
who I met with, many American officials had met with. This was
an individual in a country that for years did everything that
we asked them to do to maintain stability and fight radical
jihadists in that part of the world.
We facilitated and participated in the overthrow of
Gaddafi. Again, Gaddafi reformed in 2003, 2004. Someone who had
been our enemy, but because of consistent Republican and
Democrat administrations putting sanctions on him and holding
his feet to the fire, in 2004 he changed sides. He got rid of
his nuclear weapons program. He paid reparations. He started to
fight radical jihadists with us.
We took an island of stability in Northern Africa, and it
became a hotbed of extremism, exporting weapons, exporting
fighters and ideology throughout Northern Africa, the Middle
East, and being a launching pad into Europe.
In closing, let me just say that I think it is time for
Congress to ask this administration some very serious questions
about PSD-11. Exactly what is the content of PSD-11? What were
the criteria for vetting organizations in Libya, Iraq, Egypt,
Syria, and Afghanistan, and Yemen? What were the criteria for
vetting organizations that we would work with?
What groups and individuals actually passed through the
vetting process and we started to engage with? The names of the
organizations of the individuals responsible for vetting the
new groups, and any and all assessments by the U.S. Government
of the activities undertaken by these groups or from 2012 until
today.
I think that you will find that the change in policy is the
primary reason for the instability and the rapid spread of
radical jihadism throughout the Middle East and the increased
threat to the homeland.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Hoekstra follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter Hoekstra
September 22, 2016
Good morning Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Coleman, and
distinguished Members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss the need to identify the radical
Islamist terror threat.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism works tirelessly to ensure
that political leaders, National security officials and fellow
Americans understand that the United States cannot defeat radical Islam
without defining it.
Islamists and their sympathizers hate us and they will not stop
hating us. Islamists, or ``caliphists'' as I like to call them, pursue
three objectives: Establish a caliphate, install a caliph to rule it
and govern it under strict sharia law. They yield no middle ground or
accommodation. Thus far, the United States has been unsuccessful in
confronting and containing the threat on our path to ultimately
winning.
evidence
The trends in the war against Islamist terror both in fatalities
and breadth are not positive.
On a global scale, jihadists murdered an average of 2,500 innocents
annually between 2001 and 2006. The number grew to approximately 3,300
innocents by 2009, which tripled to roughly 9,500 in 2012 and tripled
again to nearly 30,000 killed last year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Steven Emerson and Pete Hoekstra. ``Islamist Terror Growing in
Lethality and Geography, IPT Analysis Finds,'' The Investigative
Project on Terrorism, March 28, 2016, http://
www.investigativeproject.org/5241/islamist-terror-growing-in-lethality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase in the number of victims corresponds to a wider
theater of operations. From 2001-06, the threat was dispersed in area
and occurred primarily in 10 countries. By 2015, significant Islamist
terrorist activity could be found in 18 countries, with most
concentrated in Africa and the Middle East.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan are failed states.
The Islamist cancer endangers Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi
Arabia. In Asia the threat is growing in countries like Thailand,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
The massive migrant flows into Europe, the lack of effective
assimilation and the attacks in Paris, Cologne, Brussels, Nice, London,
and others highlight the growing menace in Europe. The United States
has experienced its own manifestation of radical Islam with the violent
attacks in Orlando, San Bernardino, and military installations
throughout the country, as well as most recently with the attacks in
New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota.
There were 2.74 million refugees from the Middle East and North
Africa in 2015.\3\ Additionally, there were approximately 4.8 million
internally displaced persons in the Middle East alone. Iraq, Syria, and
Yemen accounted for more than half of the total.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2015,'' United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees, June 20, 2016.
\4\ Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Quarterly Update,
April-June 2016, http://www.internal-displacement.org/assets/
publications/2016/IDMC-quarterly-update-2016-QU2final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened from 2009 to 2016 that led to such a massive increase
in Islamist violence?
u.n resolution 16/18
Ever since President Obama delivered his 2009 Cairo speech in which
he declared his responsibility ``to fight against negative stereotypes
of Islam,''\5\ his administration has strengthened a partnership with
the Saudi Arabia-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).\6\
The OIC is a 57-member government body that incorporates the contrived
term ``Islamophobia'' into its rhetoric and diplomacy to counter
perceived criticism of Islam or linking religion with terrorism.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09,'' The
White House, Office of the Press Secretary (Cairo, Egypt), June 4,
2009, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-
cairo-university-6-04-09.
\6\ ``Background: OIC-US Cooperation--2011-08-08,'' Organization of
Islamic Cooperation, http://www.oicun.org/oicus/64/
20110808013147562.html.
\7\ ``Eighth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia,'' Presented to
the 42nd Council of Foreign Ministers, Kuwait City, State of Kuwait,
May 2014-April 2015, http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/upload/islamophobia/
2015/en/reports/8th_Ob_Rep_Islamophobia_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, the partnership resulted in the adoption of U.N.
Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 to combat Islamophobia.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18,'' Human
Rights Council, Sixteenth Session, Agenda item 9, March 21, 2011,
http://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Resolution16-
18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution seeks ``to criminalize incitement to imminent
violence based on religion or belief'' and in so doing supports the
suppression of any speech that negatively portrays Islam. Experts
assert that the resolution ``effectively imposes Sharia blasphemy
standards on American law'' and stands in ``violation of First
Amendment free-speech principles.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Andrew C. McCarthy, ``In Initially Airbrushing Orlando
Jihadists's Calls, DOJ Followed Obama-Clinton U.N. Resolution against
Negative Speech about Islam,'' National Review, June 20, 2016, http://
www.nationalreview.com/corner/436854/doj-followed-obama-clinton-un-
resolution-against-negative-speech-about-islam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one commentator noted, ``Unfortunately, America's concern for
the protection of free speech seems to have gotten lost as its focus
moved closer to the OIC's positions, and an emphasis was placed on
protecting Muslims in the West from `Islamophobia.' ''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Deborah Weiss, ``U.S. Praises Sharia Censorship,'' FrontPage
Magazine, May 23, 2013, http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/190622/us-
praises-sharia-censorship-deborah-weiss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of State Clinton co-chaired an OIC ministerial meeting in
Istanbul on ``religious intolerance'' in July 2011 to spearhead efforts
to implement the resolution \11\ that came to be known as the
``Istanbul Process.''\12\ At the meeting, Clinton advocated the use of
interfaith dialogue and ``good old-fashioned techniques of peer
pressure and shaming''\13\ to restrict freedom of speech without
passing formal legislation to achieve the same results. Furthermore,
the fact that the United States provided an international forum for
airing grievances about Islamophobia only emboldened OIC demands for
global blasphemy laws.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Remarks at the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance,'' Istanbul,
Turkey, July 15, 2011, http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/
rm/2011/07/168636.htm.
\12\ Nina Shea. ``A perverse `Process,' '' New York Post, Dec. 17,
2011, http://nypost.com/2011/12/17/a-perverse-process/.
\13\ ``Remarks at the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance,'' Istanbul,
Turkey, July 15, 2011, http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/
rm/2011/07/168636.htm.
\14\ Nina Shea, ``The Administration Takes on `Islamophobia,' ''
Hudson Institute, Sept. 1, 2011, http://www.hudson.org/research/8286-
the-administration-takes-on-islamophobia-.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Obama-Clinton administration would later consult with the OIC
to craft the fabricated story that an internet video that nobody had
ever seen caused the Sept. 11, 2012 massacre in Benghazi.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Newly Released Documents Confirm White House Officials Set
Hillary Clinton's Benghazi Response,'' Judicial Watch, June 29, 2015,
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-
newly-released-documents-confirm-white-house-officials-set-hillary-
clintons-benghazi-response/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
psd-11
In August 2010 Obama signed Presidential Study Directive-11 (PSD-
11), which reportedly ordered a Government-wide reassessment of
prospects for political reform in the Middle East and of the Muslim
Brotherhood's role in the process.
Under PSD-11--which the administration needs to declassify--Obama
and Clinton pivoted from the historical U.S. strategy of maintaining
order and stability in the Middle East. It instead turned to a strategy
that emphasized support for regime change, as well as political and
democratic reforms, regardless of the impact on regional stability.
PSD-11 directly led to U.S. engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood.
U.S. officials did not concern themselves with questions over
whether the new power structures would become allies or foes, or with
intelligence agency warnings about the jihadist chaos such regime
change might unleash.
An official in the Obama White House indicated at the time, ``It's
a roll of the dice . . . ''.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ David Ignatius. ``Obama's low-key strategy for the Middle
East,'' The Washington Post, March 6, 2011, http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/
AR2011030404614.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
international implications
The United States undermined long-time ally President Hosni Mubarak
and embraced the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after adopting PSD-11.
Eventually Mubarak fell, and Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi
won the presidency.
For the first time since its founding in 1928, the Muslim
Brotherhood ran a major country in the Middle East, and Obama and
Clinton were willing accomplices.
In Libya Muammar Gaddafi--a repressive dictator and state sponsor
of terror for 40 years--reversed course and by 2003-04 allied with the
United States. He turned over his weapons programs. He paid reparations
to the victims of his terrorist activity. He fought side-by-side with
the West against radical jihadists.
Under the guidance of PSD-11, the administration turned on Gaddafi
and sided with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda elements to dispose
of him. Libya now exports weapons, training, and jihadist ideology
throughout the greater region.
domestic implications
Federal law identifies anyone who ``endorses or espouses terrorist
activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity
or support a terrorist organization'' as an inadmissible alien under 8
USC 1182.
Following the issuance of PSD-11 and the start of the Arab Spring,
the Obama administration granted entry visas to individuals belonging
to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups who made statements
supportive of Islamic terror activities. Many of them should not have
received visas under Federal law. The United States previously denied
visas to some of the individuals. Again, it was a major shift in U.S.
policy. For example:
Shiekh Rached Ghannouchi received an entry visa in the fall of 2011
despite his pro-Hamas statements \17\ and his meeting with former Osama
bin Laden lieutenant Abu Iyadh in August 2011.\18\ Similar statements
led the administration of President Bill Clinton to ban Ghannouchi from
entering the United States in 1994.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Rachid Ghannouchi, leader of Tunisia's Ennadha Movement:
Qatar has played a leading role in the success of the Arab
revolutions.'' Al-Arab, May 2, 2011, https://archive.is/lQQgY (Accessed
May 21, 2015).
\18\ ``Exclusive: The truth about Abu Iyadh told by his
bodyguard,'' Tunisie Secret, Dec. 10, 2014, https://archive.is/Akngg
(Accessed Feb. 4, 2016).
\19\ Martin Kramer's Facebook page, updated Oct. 25, 2011, https://
archive.today/mwBrG (Accessed May 22, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former President of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and
Opposition Forces Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib al-Hassani received a visa to
enter the United States in March 2015. He met with Secretary of State
John Kerry,\20\ U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power\21\ and
National Security Advisor Susan Rice.\22\ A review of his website
Darbuna.net reveals a litany of statements supporting the Taliban,\23\
bin Laden \24\ and 1983 Marine barracks bombing mastermind Imad
Mugniyeh.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Jen Psaki. ``Secretary of State John Kerry's Meeting with Moaz
al-Khatib,'' Department of State, press release, March 25, 2015, http:/
/www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/03/239761.htm (Accessed May 20, 2015).
\21\ Samantha Power. Twitter post, March 24, 2015, 1:48 p.m.,
https://archive.is/uztqr (Accessed May 20, 2015).
\22\ Joyce Karam, Twitter post, March 24, 2015, 6:36 a.m., https://
archive.today/HBMbM (Accessed May 20, 2015).
\23\ Mouaz al-Khatib. ``The Coming Martyrs,'' Darbuna.net, March 3,
2007, IPT translation from the Arabic, https://archive.today/xwbg4
(Accessed March 30, 2015).
\24\ Ibid.
\25\ ``Moaz al-Khatib interview with Osman Osman,'' Al-Jazeera
video, 47:33, Aug. 15, 2012, IPT translation from Arabic, http://
www.aljazeera.net/programs/religionandlife/2012/8/15/
%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%88-%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%81-%D9%81%D8%B6%D9%88%D9%84-
%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF (Accessed April 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Department officials granted a visa sponsored by the Syrian
American Council to Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Nabulsi in January 2014 \26\
even though he issued an April 2001 fatwa sanctioning Palestinian
suicide bombings.\27\ Nabulsi also sanctioned the death penalty for
LGBTs.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Ken Timmerman. ``Obama Administration let anti-gay Muslim
leader into U.S.,'' New York Post, March 2, 2014, http://nypost.com/
2014/03/02/state-dept-lets-anti-gay-muslim-leader-into-u-s/ (Accessed
April 16, 2015).
\27\ Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Nabulsi. ``Islamic topics--Brief
Topics--Lesson 35: ruling on martyrdom operations in Palestine,'' April
23, 2001, http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/
777.pdf#page=4, IPT translation from Arabic, alternate link in the
Arabic archived from Nabulsi's website: https://archive.is/c09tt
(Accessed June 2, 2016).
\28\ ``On Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV: Muhammad Rateb Al-Nabulsi, Syrian
Islamic Scholar Active in the U.S., Says Homosexuality is Filthy,
`Leads To the Destruction of the Homosexual; That Is Why, Brothers,
Homosexuality Carries the Death Penalty.' '' Middle East Media Research
Institute, May 19, 2011, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/
5296.htm (Accessed Feb. 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
U.N. Resolution 16/18, PSD-11 and the decisions based upon them
fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy. The flawed and naive
analyses and the policies that sprang from them created conditions that
fostered the rapid expansion of Islamist terror--specifically ISIS--and
sent the Middle East and North Africa into barbaric turmoil.
The reported enshrinement of PSD-11 as a new National security
strategy initiated dramatic reversals of longstanding bipartisan
agreement among lawmakers.
With PSD-11 the administration engaged with radical Islamists who
predictably took advantage of the opportunity to fundamentally
transform the region and its threat environment rather than pursuing
democratic reforms.
Several questions remain unanswered that would help the country to
better understand how radical Islam became such a dominating force in
the world today. The Investigative Project on Terrorism suggests that
Congress demand the following information:
1. The contents of PSD-11.
2. The criteria for vetting organizations in Libya, Iraq, Egypt,
Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen with which the U.S. Government
would eventually partner.
3. The groups and individuals that passed the vetting process.
4. The names of the organizations and individuals responsible for
vetting the new groups.
5. Any and all assessments by the U.S. Government of the activities
undertaken by these groups from 2012 to today.
Members of Congress are responsible to the American people they
represent to help them make sense of the dramatic change that the Obama
administration implemented in the Middle East, how they implemented it
and how effective or ineffective its results may have been.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman Mr. Hoekstra.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Jasser for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF M. ZUHDI JASSER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM
FOR DEMOCRACY
Dr. Jasser. Thank you, Chairman Perry and Members of the
House Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on
Oversight and Management for holding this important meeting on
identifying the enemy in radical Islamist terror. I ask that my
written testimony be entered into the record.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
Dr. Jasser. As the president and founder of the American
Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, I am here because
I could not feel more strongly that our current direction and
our current strategy, or lack of strategy, is deeply flawed and
profoundly dangerous for the security of our Nation.
As a devout Muslim who loves my faith and loves my Nation,
the concerted focus to de-emphasize the root causes of radical
Islam or political Islamic supremacism, Sharia supremacism, is
the root cause of the global war that we are in.
Until we name this, and then once we can name it, treat it
and counter it, we are going to continue this whack-a-mole
program, which is failing day after day after day. The denial
of truth is wedded to dishonesty from those who reject the need
for reform within the house of Islam and the need to engage
reformers.
You will hear endless excuses, excuses as to why we should
not use theopolitical terms which our enemies use to define
themselves. You will hear the absurd and, I am sorry to say,
un-American pleas for you to invoke blasphemy speech
restrictions upon yourselves in the discourse in order to
dishonestly avoid terms like Islamism, Islamist, Ummah, takfir,
Islamic State, jihad, Salafism, Wahhabism. All these which are
the way the enemy defines themselves, but also words that are
necessary in order to know which pool these militants come
from.
The reason our homeland security is failing is because the
pool that they are swimming in, they can't look at the Omar
Mateens of the world, the Dahar Dadan from Minneapolis, the
Ahmad Rahimi. The ideas of political Islam, anti-Westernism,
anti-Semitism are things that we should be monitoring, not
taking away the rights of those communities but at least
monitoring and profiling those ideas so that we know what the
precursors are, because we know what those precursors are.
It is a suspension of disbelief and a cognitive dissonance
for Homeland Security to list for you Muslim partners and then
say Islam, well, it has no problem. There is a suspension of
disbelief when we say we engage Muslim groups, but yet Islam,
Islamism isn't related. Which is it?
Either you don't engage Muslim groups because Islam has
nothing to do with it or Islamism has an issue within it, which
is the problem ideology, so we need to engage Muslim groups.
You can't have it both ways.
You will hear terms like securitization, where somehow if
the American public engages in a debate against theocracy,
which is what our Founding Fathers did, that that will make us
into this bigoted, anti-Muslim community.
Well, we fought this battle before. We can engage with the
right side of those who share our values within the Muslim
community in order to make it clear what are those who do not
share our values inside the Muslim community, that they should
not be our allies.
But once you say that anyone who is Muslim and is anti-
terror is on our side, then you end up doing the bidding of
theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Egypt and
other military dictatorships that are Sharia states that brew
these radical ideas, that love to hear us just use contra and
violent extremism because it allows them to continue to push
the Sharia state ideology that is the drug that creates the
ISISes of the world.
So when you hear that in America this attempt to invoke
blasphemy laws, it is actually doing the bidding of the
elephant in the room, which is the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, the theocracies that love to see us not identify
this as Islamism because the grassroots movement, the hope and
the prayer of the Arab Awakening was about defeating
dictatorships that were going to marginalize radicals, that
were going to marginalize theocrats.
But instead, we end up working with the arsonists as the
firefighters. That is what happens when you work with the
Saudis and the Muslim groups that Secretary Johnson went and
spoke to. ISNA and other groups that we are catering to are
also both the arsonists and the firefighters because they are
distributing literature that glorifies political Islam, that
glorifies Sharia state ideology. That ultimately ends up
causing the harms that radicalize our community.
We are ignoring movements like the Muslim Reform Movement.
I would ask every one of you, left to right, if you truly
believe in diversity, what is diversity in the Muslim
community? It is not ethnic diversity or racial diversity. It
is ideological diversity.
When you say that well, we speak to the platform of the
Islamic Society of North America, that is a monolithic, single
ideology group that is based on an idea that is about clerics,
men in beards that run the society and speak for Muslims across
the country.
That is not Muslim identification. Those are not groups
that represent the majority of Muslims. Even Pew data has shown
that they only represent 10 to 12 percent. The rest of us
secularized Muslims that believe in the personal aspect of our
faith are not represented in major movements in America. Our
Muslim Reform Movement has been trying to engage government,
media, academia to say that we want to reform against political
Islam, and we need representation. That is who should be the
partners.
The reason this whack-a-mole program continues is because
we have not been engaging in true reform for the separation of
mosque and State. Instead we have been catering to the
intoxicant of political Islam, which is the precursor ideology.
So in closing, I want to leave you with recommendations. I
think we need to transition immediately in Homeland Security,
away from countering violent extremism. What you are going to
hear is already supposedly bigoted when, in fact, I don't even
know what that is. We need to transition to countering violent
Islamism because that is what they call themselves, and that is
what Arabs and Muslims across the Middle East are fighting. So
it should be CVI.
Second, the U.S. Government and academia and media need to
include a broad spectrum of diverse voices. If you believe in
diversity, have Muslims debate this publicly so that we aren't
just sort-of marginalized to the lowest hanging fruit which is
the OIC lobby in Washington which ends up speaking for all of
our groups.
It is time to stop engaging Muslim Brotherhood legacy
groups and recognize their misogynist, anti-Semitic,
homophobic, anti-American underpinnings. We must recognize they
are not the only voice for American Muslims. We must make
women's issues and freedom of conscience and speech a litmus
test when we work with these organizations.
It is time to stop giving credence to the concerns of OIC
dictatorships and instead have a long vision for the narratives
that we are working with. As uncomfortable as it may be to
speak the language of the enemy, they do call themselves
Islamists and effectively separate themselves from other
Muslims.
I also ask that you reopen investigation into the Council
on American Islamic Relations' radical ties and their extensive
domestic and foreign network because they represent sort-of an
example of why these other groups were called unindicted co-
conspirators and why that is so important. I ask that you no
longer fear offending by using these terms.
Those first oppressed by political Islam are Muslims,
modern Muslims that are reformers. Without including us,
homeland security depends upon your honesty in order for the
American people to hold the rest of us accountable. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jasser follows:]
Prepared Statement of M. Zudhi Jasser
September 22, 2016
introduction
Thank you Chairman Perry and Members of the House Committee on
Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency
for holding this very important hearing on ``Identifying the Enemy:
Radical Islamist Terror.'' I am Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president and
founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) based in
Phoenix, Arizona. I am here today, because I could not feel more
strongly that our current National and agency direction in combating
Islamist inspired terrorism is deeply flawed and profoundly dangerous.
As a devout Muslim who loves my faith, and loves my Nation, the de-
emphasis of ``radical Islam'' and the ``Islamist'' root cause of global
Islamist terrorism is the greatest obstacle to both National harmony
and National security. Wholesale denial of the truth by many in our
Government and political establishment has actually emboldened
extremists on both sides of this debate: Both radical Islamists and
anti-Muslim fascists.
Neither Islam nor Muslims are monolithic and should not be treated
as such by anyone--much less our Government and media. Please
understand it is as equally foolhardy in counter-terrorism and counter-
radicalization work to refuse to acknowledge the role of political
Islam in the threat as it is to villainize the whole of Islam and all
Muslims. The majority of Americans are smart enough to understand that
to say the House of ``Islam has no problems'' is just as problematic as
declaring that ``Islam, and all Muslims, are the problem''. I am here
to tell you that our National security policy of refusing to say that
``Islam currently has a problem'' is dangerous. This surrender, which
began just after 9/11, has chartered a course towards failure. It has
hamstrung our homeland security heroes from addressing any of the most
central Islamist precursors of militant Islamists. If the agency
actually emphasized the central role of radical Islamism and its
attendant theopolitical ideologies, it would shift the entire axis of
our agency apparatus toward once and for all beginning to actually
address, expose, and engage the root cause of the theocratic strains of
Islam (or Islamism) which would begin to make us safer. So-called
Violent Extremism (VE) is simply an endpoint of a common supremacist
ideology that at its root is theo-political and is a radicalization
process that occurs over months to years and is far easier to publicly
monitor than waiting for guess work on ``Violent Extremism''.
The only way to right this deep misdirection is actually very
simple. All we need to do is abandon the mantra of ``Countering Violent
Extremism'' (CVE) and replace it with ``Countering Violent Islamism''
(CVI). I will show you today that change can only happen with an
acknowledgement of the central role of ``Radical Islam'' or
``Islamism'' in the root cause of the domestic and global security
threat to the United States and the West.
background on aifd, the muslim reform movement, and important
terminology
Our American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) was founded in 2003
in the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11. For us it is a
very personal mission to leave our American Muslim children a legacy
that their faith is based in the unalienable right to liberty and to
teach them that the principles that founded America do not contradict
their faith but strengthen it. AIFD's founding principle is that we as
Muslims are able to best practice our faith in a society like the
United States that guarantees the rights of every individual under God
but blind to any one faith with no Governmental intermediary stepping
between the individual and the creator to interpret the will of God.
Because of this, our mission is explicitly to advocate for the
principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, liberty
and freedom through the separation of mosque and state. We believe that
this mission from within the ``House of Islam'' is the only way to
inoculate Muslim youth and young adults against radicalization. The
``Liberty narrative'' is the only effective counter to the ``Islamist
narrative.''
AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly
confronting and attempting to reform against the ideas of political
Islam. We believe Muslims can openly counter the common belief that the
Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic state
(Islamism). AIFD's mission is derived from a love for America and a
love of our faith of Islam. The theocratic ``Islamic'' regimes of the
Middle East and many Muslim majority nations use their interpretations
of Islam and ``shar'ia'' as a way to control Muslim populations. We
believe as did America's founding fathers that the purest practice of
faith is one in which the faithful have complete freedom to accept or
reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we
enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic. We constantly ask
that Americans not just observe what is happening inside the House of
Islam but that you take the sides of the reformers, dissidents, and
secularists against the theocratic Islamists.
AIFD was founded on the premise that the root cause of Islamist
terrorism is the ideology of political Islam and a belief in the
preference for and supremacy of an Islamic state. Terrorism is but a
means to that end. Most Islamist terror is driven by the desire of
Islamists to drive the influence of the West (the ideas of liberty) out
of the Muslim consciousness and Muslim majority societies. With almost
a quarter of the world's population Muslim, American security will
never come without an understanding and winning out of the ideas of
liberty by Muslims and an understanding of the harm of political Islam
by non-Muslims. This will happen neither without identifying the
enemy--radical Islamism--nor without identifying our allies--Muslims--
who believe in liberty and reject theocracy.
We work to engage Muslim youth and empower them with the
independence to question the ideas of imams, clerics, and so many
``tribal'' leaders of Muslim communities unwilling to work toward
reform and modernity. We empower Muslim youth to have the confidence to
take personal intellectual ownership of their own interpretation of
Islam, the Qur'an, Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad), and
shariah (Islamic jurisprudence) and separate mosque and state. We work
to advocate for the ideas of gender equality, genuine religious
pluralism, and an unwavering preference of the secular state and a
secular law over the Islamic state among other central ideas in
modernity.
Our mission is on the front lines of what is probably the most
essential and yet contentious debate of the 21st Century. So it should
be easy to understand why many Muslims may agree with our mission to
separate mosque and state and marginalize political Islam, but yet want
to remain private and out of the public eye as supporters.
AIFD most recently convened and helped launch the Muslim Reform
Movement (MRM) in December 2015 in Washington, DC.\1\ The Muslim Reform
Movement is a coalition of over 15 Western Muslim Leaders (from the
United States, Canada, and Europe) whose goal is to actively fight
radical Islam from inside by confronting the idea of Islamism at its
roots. The MRM has written a Declaration for Muslim Reform, a living
document which was presented to all Islamic organizations, leaders and
mosques across the United States in 2016 (Appendix 1A, 1B), with hopes
of using its principles as a firewall to clearly separate radical
Islamists from Muslims who believe in universal human rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Press Conference of the Launch of the Muslim Reform Movement,
National Press Club, December 4, 2015: https://youtu.be/xlAnr8bIIr8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not one iota of this work is possible in an environment where
Government agencies and the American public writ large are unwilling to
understand and engage Muslim groups domestically and abroad on their
diverse interpretations of core terms, ideas, and movements. The
attempts and policies of the Obama administration and its advisors to
obstruct the use of terms which are central to the precursor
characteristics of radicalized Muslims is willfully blind, negligent,
and leaves us bare against the threat of radical Islamism. It renders
our greatest allies within the Muslim community--genuine reformers--
entirely impotent and marginalized.
I ask that any official and unofficial U.S. Government moratorium
on the use and understanding of the following terms and ideologies be
immediately lifted. Let there at least be an on-going public debate
about these terms. Let our analysts at least have the freedom to dare
to understand the role of these theo-political ideas in the conveyor
belt of radicalization. The suppression and censorship of these words
and concepts by the U.S. Government in the public discourse on Muslim
radicalization is simply un-American. It is surrender, and it is in
fact dangerous. Our founding fathers were able to navigate a war of
ideas against theocracy. We can do it again in the 21st Century. It is
absurd to assert that since these terms are theo-political they are
outside the domain of government all the while a militant domestic and
global enemy is spreading forms of these ideas virally. I ask that the
following terms and ideas become part of the fair domain of our
security agencies. Our agency analysts and government experts are smart
enough and fair enough to know that each of these terms carries with it
a diverse set of interpretations from within the ``House of Islam'' and
that suppressing this essential debate hands the debate to our Islamist
enemies. I submit the following terms and proposed definitions for the
record in hopes that other Government agencies follow suit and rather
than engaging Islamist apologists who obstruct and deny, that they
instead begin engaging honest Muslims who are ready to confront the
global radical movements that use them:
A. Islam.--The faith tradition, its practice, and scriptures
identified by over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.
B. Islamism and Islamists.--The theo-political movement (Islamism)
or party and its adherents (Islamists) who seek to establish
Islamic states governed by shar'ia law in Muslim majority
nations and institutions.
C. Shar'ia.--Islamic theological jurisprudence as interpreted by
Muslim jurists and clerics and practiced by Muslims.
D. Jihad.--A holy war or armed struggle against unbelievers or
enemies of an Islamic state. It can also mean spiritual
struggle within oneself against sin.
E. Wahhabism.--A Sunni Islamist movement based in a puritanical
literalism and intolerance of any other interpretations or
faith. A revivalist movement originated in the Najd of Arabia
in the mid-19th century by Ibn Abdul Wahhab. It is the dominant
strain of thought empowered by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Its
ideas are central to the Salafi-jihadism of groups like Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
F. Salafism.--Sunni Islamic fundamentalism which attempts to return
normative Muslim practices to the literal ways of the Prophet
Muhammad in the 7th Century. Salaf literally means ``companions
of the Prophet''. It is often synonymous with Wahhabism but is
far more ubiquitous. Salafism, like Wahhabism deplores
invention.
G. Caliphate and Caliphism.--The theo-political ideology or desire
by Islamists to re-establish the caliphate, a globally-unified
Islamic governance of Islamic states which are led by a single
caliph.
H. Ummah.--The entire Muslim Faith community, but it can also mean
the Islamic state.
I. Islamic reform, Ijtihad.--Critical interpretation of scripture
(exegesis) and Islamic jurisprudence in the light of modernity.
J. Takfir.--The rejection (``excommunication'') of another Muslim
from the faith community. The declaration of another Muslim as
an apostate.
To think that these words, these concepts and others are off-limits
in the freest nation on earth, censored to our agencies, is just
incredulous considering the growing threat we face today from violent
Islamism. It smacks of a bizarre invocation of blasphemy laws in
America. Violent manifestations of each of these above ideas is a
natural byproduct of the intolerant non-violent underbelly of their
beliefs. Any security apparatus unable or unwilling to connect the dots
between the non-violent and violent manifestations of these ideologies
is leaving us bare and will continue to miss the signs of
radicalization.
The latest recommendations from the Homeland Security Advisory
Council ignorantly state the exact opposite recommending that only
``plain American English words'' be used and these terms be avoided.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Interim Report and Recommendations of the Homeland Security
Advisory Council Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee of the
US Department of Homeland Security. June 2016. [https://www.dhs.gov/
sites/default/files/publications/HSAC/HSAC CVE Final Interim Report
June 9 2016 508 compliant.pdf]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope and pray that my testimony today will open your eyes to how
central the engagement of honest terminology is in demarcating who are
our genuine allies from those who are or are working with our enemies
abroad and the insurgents within.
Personally, I will add that we are rendered entirely unarmed in our
work at AIFD and in the Muslim Reform Movement in America, Canada, and
Europe if we cannot engage our own faith community within the House of
Islam on these ideas and if agencies cannot use these terms to look at
precursor ideologies to ``violent Islamism''.\3\ All of the Muslim
leaders in our Muslim Reform Movement would agree that looking just at
``violent extremism'' (VE) is too nebulous, nonspecific, and will
result over and over in agency blinders to the attacks we have seen
including the radical Islamist attacks at Fort Hood, Boston Marathon,
Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and now Orlando. We cannot hold security
agencies accountable to precursor ideologies and warning signs when
those precursors are part of a continuum our agencies and media censor
from the entire discourse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.muslimreformmovement.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
deemphasizing radical islam kept homeland security and the american
public from seeing the common precursors to many recent attacks on our
homeland
In June 2016 a new report from the Homeland Security Advisory
Council urged the rejection of Islamic terms such as ``jihad'' and
``shar'ia'' in programs aimed at countering terrorist radicalization
among American youth while also calling for an additional $100 million
in funding with private-sector cooperation.\4\ \5\ In the section on
terminology, the report calls for rejecting use of an ``us versus
them'' mentality by shunning Islamic language in CVE programs. It
further recommends that DHS ``reject religiously charged terminology
and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English''.
Yet without the ability to target any of the precursor Islamist
ideologies being identified it will continue to be a grotesquely
inefficient whack-a-mole program centered simply on the all too vague
symptom of ``violent extremism'' (CVE) rather than the disease of
``violent Islamism'' (CVI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Gertz, Bill. DHS Report Calls for Rejecting Terms `Jihad',
`Sharia' ''. The Washington Free Beacon. June 17, 2016. [http://
freebeacon.com/national-security/homeland-security-report-calls-
rejecting-terms-jihad-sharia/]
\5\ Interim Report and Recommendations of the Homeland Security
Advisory Council Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee of the
US Department of Homeland Security. June 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will next highlight a few obvious common denominators in recent
attacks to illustrate how a shift in our agency and public discourse
center of gravity from ``countering violent extremism'' (CVE) to
``countering violent Islamism'' (CVI) would go a long ways towards
making us safer and giving meaning to ``see something, say something''.
In every one of these cases, it is abundantly obvious that had security
agencies been honed in on the continuum of radical Islam or ``violent
Islamism'', had they as a matter of policy been held accountable for
monitoring the non-violent precursor of Islamism (political Islam)
which precedes ``violent Islamism'' then these massacres may have been
far more likely prevented.
Fort Hood Massacre of November 5, 2009 \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Jasser, M. Zuhdi and Leibsohn, Seth. The West's Denial at Fort
Hood. National Review. August 28, 2013 [http://www.nationalreview.com/
article/356918/wests-denial-fort-hood-m-zuhdi-jasser-seth-leibsohn]
(Accessed June 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nidal Hasan's case contains within it a microcosm of the entire
domestic and global threat we face from jihadism and Islamism. If
Americans cannot be kept safe from a Muslim terrorist inside an Army
base in Texas, they cannot be kept safe anywhere. During his time at
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences, before he was transferred to Ft.
Hood, Major Hasan was exceedingly vocal in his opposition to the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. He openly opposed those wars based on his
religious (obvious theo-political Islamist) views. But nothing was
done. Two years before the Ft. Hood attack, Major Hasan gave a
PowerPoint presentation at Walter Reed titled ``Why the War on Terror
Is a War on Islam.'' But nothing was done. Some of his fellow officers
complained about him to their superiors. But nothing was done. The
PowerPoint contained statements from Hasan such as, ``It's getting
harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being
in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.''
It contained violent interpretations from the Qur'an. And Hasan's
PowerPoint concluded with a quote from Osama bin Laden: ``We love death
more than you love life.'' The following year, a group of fellow Army
physicians met to ask themselves if they thought Hasan might be
``psychotic.'' ``Everybody felt that if you were deployed to Iraq or
Afghanistan, you would not want Nidal Hasan in your foxhole,'' said
one. But nothing was done . . . except to transfer Hasan to Ft. Hood.
And just as Hasan didn't keep quiet at Walter Reed, neither did he
hold his tongue at Ft. Hood. Hasan's record at Ft. Hood includes
telling his medical supervisor there that ``she was an infidel who
would be `ripped to shreds' and `burn in hell' because she was not
Muslim.'' But nothing was done. Nidal Hasan made personal business
cards; they mentioned no affiliation with the United States military
but underneath his name on the cards, listed his profession as ``SOA,''
or ``Soldier of Allah.'' But nothing was done. And, finally, Hasan was
in frequent e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim
cleric who, even then, had been implicated in at least two other
terrorist plots in America and had since fled to Yemen. But nothing was
done. Indeed, taking all of this into account, it is difficult to
imagine just what more Nidal Hasan could have done to broadcast his
lethal views and intentions.
After the slaughter, the chief of staff of the Army was asked about
Muslims in the military and said, ``Our diversity, not only in our
army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this
tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's
worse.'' The Army's top officer put a misplaced definition of
``diversity'' on a higher moral plane than innocent life. The
politically correct ethic in the Army was one where any perceived
threat against ``ethnic'' diversity in our military would be treated as
worse than a threat against our troops, and our Nation, even on our
homeland. Who would have thought such a postmodern view would take root
in our Nation's military? But it has.
Even with the time for analysis and re-analysis and millions of
dollars later, the Pentagon's after-action report still gave support to
this politically correct, multicultural triumph of ethics. In the 86
pages of the ``Lessons from Fort Hood,'' not once does the name Nidal
Hasan get mentioned.\7\ Instead, he is referred to indeterminately, as
``a gunman''--just like any other random perpetrator of homicide. The
word ``Islam'' appears once, and its appearance comes only in a buried
endnote, in the title of one of many scholarly papers. The word
``Muslim'' appears nowhere in the report. Nor does the word ``jihad.''
This is blatant surrender resulting from a fratricidal obstinacy of
naming and engaging our enemy's Islamist ideologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood: Report of the DOD
Independent Review. Secretary of Defense Dr. Robert M. Gates et. al.
January 2010. [http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DOD-
ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf] (Accessed June 26,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chattanooga Recruiting Center Massacre of July 16, 2015
Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez killed five marines and injured several
others in what was a typical militant Islamist act of war inspired by
the separatist ideology of Islamism. According to SITE Intelligence
Group, a July 13, 2015 post state that ``life is short and bitter'' and
that Muslims should not let ``the opportunity to submit to Allah . . .
pass you by''. In an entry on ``Understanding Islam'' he referred to
the Prophet Muhammad's companions nation that ``almost every one of
them was a political leader or an army general. Every one of them
fought Jihad for the sake of Allah. We ask Allah to make us follow
their path. To give us a complete understanding of the message of
Islam, and the strength the live by this knowledge, and to know what
role we need to play to establish Islam in the world.'' These posts
were only a few days prior to his attack upon the recruiting center but
an agency following ``Islamist'' separatist movements would have picked
up on his ``jihad'' and ``need to establish Islam''. His father was on
the FBI terrorist watch list for an unspecified period of time on
suspicion of donating money to an organization suspected of being a
terrorist front.\8\ The milieu of ideas and affiliations was clearly
very Islamist and would have been on the radar of an agency following
``violent Islamism'' and its Islamist and jihadist precursors. James
Kitfield described ``Tennessee as the capital of American Jihad'' for
Politico noting that the first jihadist attack after 9/11 was committed
by Carlos Bledsoe aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Mohammed.\9\ On June 1, 2009,
Mohammed opened fire on a Little Rock Arkansas military recruiting
office killing one service member and wounding another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Arutz Sheva Staff. Father of Tennessee Shooter was on Terrorist
List. Israel National News. July 17, 2015 [http://www.politico.com/
magazine/story/2015/07/chattanooga-shooter-carlos-bledsoe-120530].
\9\ Kitfield, James. Tennessee is the Capital of American Jihad.
Politico Magazine. July 23, 2015. [http://www.politico.com/magazine/
story/2015/07/chattanooga-shooter-carlos-bledsoe-120530].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston marathon bombing
The Islamist attack of April 13, 2013 committed by the Tsarnaev
brothers was also rife with Islamist and jihadist warning signs that
were ignored and should have been seen.\10\ Attorney General Michael
Mukasey proclaimed ``Make no mistake it was Jihad.\11\'' Our agencies
were hamstrung by no radar for Islamism or jihadism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Boston: FBI admits missed warning signs over Tamerlan. The
Scotsman. April 23, 2013. [http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/boston-
fbi-admits-missed-warning-signs-over-tamerlan-1-2905474].
\11\ Mukasey, Michael B. Make No Mistake, It was Jihad. Wall Street
Journal. April 21, 2013. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB10001424127887324874204578436592210910044].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Bernardino massacre was executed by a Jihadi couple Farook
and Tafsheen Malik. DHS's inappropriate axis of ``violent extremism''
left them off the radar. Asra Nomani, a co-founder of our Muslim Reform
Movement, points out that their social media footprint is rife with
Salafi-jihadi connections including most notably that Tafsheen had
studied under Dr. Farhat of the Al-Huda International Salafi-jihadi
(Taliban sympathetic) school based in Islamabad Pakistan. Nomani notes
that ``In the conveyor belt of radicalization, conservative Salafi
doctrine is too often a gateway drug to violence--or what French
political scientist Gilles Kepel coined as ``Salafi jihadism''.\12\ The
Quilliam Foundation, a Muslim counter-radicalization think tank in
London, UK and co-founders of our Muslim Reform Movement published a
report in 2013 titled, ``It's Salafi-Jihadist Insurgency, Stupid!''
(Appendix 2)\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Nomani, Asra. How the Saudis Churn out `Jihad Inc.' .'' The
Daily Beast. January 4, 2016. [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/
2016/01/05/how-the-saudis-churn-out-jihad-inc.html].
\13\ It's Salafi-Jiahdist Insurgency, Stupid! A policy briefing.
Quilliam Foundation. January 28, 2013. [http://
www.quilliamfoundation.org/press/its-a-salafi-jihadist-insurgency-
stupid/].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Pulse Night Club Massacre
And in the militant Islamist attack of June 12, 2016 upon Orlando
Pulse Night Club which left 49 dead and 53 injured, Omar Mateen's
declaration of allegiance to ISIS and its head, al-Baghdadi during his
9-1-1 call proves its Islamist separatist jihadist nature. He further
told the FBI negotiator during calls that he was using the same vest as
that used in France and he wanted ``to tell America to stop bombing
Syria and Iraq and that is why he was `out here right now'.''\14\ His
Islamism didn't hatch overnight. The fact that the Obama
administration's reflex response was to redact the 9-1-1 call of any
religious references speaks volumes to the obstacles engrained in the
Executive branch to confronting the real problem. Later it was revealed
that Mateen's father was sympathetic to the Taliban and had a YouTube
channel where he seemed to pretend or believe he was the President of
Afghanistan. The fact that a gay night club was attacked is also
central to the ideologies of political Islam (Islamism) and its
persecution of minorities and dissidents. Violent homophobia is
preceded by non-violent homophobia just like violent Islamism is
preceded by non-violent Islamism. Again, it is appearing that all of
the Islamist precursors within him and around him were ignored prior to
Mateen becoming weaponized as a militant jihadist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Publicly released FBI News release from Tamp Field Office of
phone call transcripts. June 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam has a problem or just a PR problem?
This attempt by the Executive branch to ``protect the image of
Islam'' is actually making Government agencies appear dishonest and
dismissive to reform-minded Muslims who would be otherwise ready to
take on the reality of the radical narrative of militant jihadists.
Reformists like those of us at the Muslim Reform Movement see that the
Islamist insurgents are at war with us and yet our own Government is
telling us by denying the role of radical Islam to effectively sit down
and be quiet with no need to fight back in this war of ideas within the
House of Islam. In fact the avoidance of a discourse on Islam does not
leave the Government neutral. It effectively hands the argument to the
predominant power structure of the domestic and global Muslim faith
community--the suffocating influence of petro-Islam, the Wahhabi Islam
of Saudi Arabia and the Islamist movement of the Muslim Brotherhood
based out of Egypt and Qatar.
Make no mistake this whole debate of this hearing is not only about
the plight of American Muslims if we were to name the enemy but it is
also about appeasement of a host of foreign Islamist regimes who our
Government is afraid to critically engage on their supremacist shar'ia
states.
Denial fuels bigotry rather than quelling it
If the reason for routinely publicly engaging Muslim leaders after
acts of Islamist terror against Americans is simply to quell the fear
of Americans, I will contend that the denial and obfuscation of the
administration and the Muslims they engage does the exact opposite.
Enabling the deep denial of the need for American Muslims to address
the root causes of Islamist-inspired terrorism and its separatism
actually fuels a growing fear of Muslims and Islam due to the
administration's choice for avoidance over transparency. Pew polling
demonstrates that American feelings about Muslims is ``cooler'' than
any other faith group scoring a 40 out of 100.\15\ In fact, there is
nothing that would do more to melt away anti-Muslim bigotry to the
extent that it exists than for Americans to see Muslims step away from
denial and actually engaging and confronting the Jihad with their own
jihad for liberty and against theocracy. We should be calling for a
jihad against jihad rather than shielding Muslims and Americans from
the tough love that they need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ How Americans Feel About Religious Groups: Jews, Catholics and
Evangelicals rated warmly, Atheists and Muslims more Coldly. Pew
Research Center: Religion and Public Life. July 16, 2014. [http://
www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/
].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad advice
The predominant Muslim advisors to the U.S. Government are
obviously sympathetic to non-violent Islamism and demand that the
United States see the problem through the lens of violent extremism
only. I will address some case examples below. Conversely it is also a
fact that as long as our Government and public discourse continues to
deemphasize the role of Islam this policy avoidance behavior will be a
natural attraction for Islamist sympathizers (radicalizers) and a
natural repellant for genuine reformers (counter-radicalizers) who seek
to modernize interpretations of Islam against the theocrats.
Bipartisan blinders and false assumptions
Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have thus
far erroneously felt that giving the radical Islamists air time for
their Islamic theological verbiage will lend them credibility. From the
time of Attorney General Gonzales, onward there have been significant
attempts by the Department of Justice to control the lexicon used to
describe radical Islamists, with repeated recommendations to avoid any
religiously-charged terminology. The assumption that radical Islamists
need our air time in order to brand themselves is false and it is more
absurd to assume that their identity and branding can be defeated by
ignoring it. In fact it requires the opposite--honest exposure,
engagement, and marginalization. In fact the suppression of the truth
of their Islamist identity is an obstacle to a whole host of policies
and engagements which would be the beginning of their defeat.
The power of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Lobby
The OIC is the proverbial elephant in the room. The constant
refrain from the Obama administration that the United States should not
``declare war against 1.6 billion Muslims and their governments'' is
related to global intimidation by the OIC sadly while ignoring the
plight of Muslim and non-Muslim dissidents in their nations who lead
the fight against Islamist movements. First, make no mistake. Across
the Middle East and Muslim majority world, many leaders, scholars, and
pundits call these individuals and their acts exactly what they call
themselves--Islamists and jihadists. They know that they cannot
publicly disengage the attendant Islamic theocratic platform of the
political movements of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood or the
Khomeinists. These political movements and the Islamist identity of
states like the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan or the Wahhabism of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the
underbelly inspiring the militant movements like ISIS, Hamas, al-Qaeda,
and Hizballah. However those Islamist governments exploit the militancy
of jihadists in order to dictate the ruling form of Islam.
It is imperative that the United States not be beholden to the
deceptive narrative of the 56 member nations of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation (OIC) regarding the root cause of the Islamist
threat. These countries, and their OIC which is essentially a ``neo-
caliphate'' are cauldrons of the precursor Islamist ideas which fuel
these movements and until they experience regime change towards
democracy will never acknowledge the role of the ``shar'ia state'' in
radicalizing Muslims. The OIC nations hide behind the facfade of
``countering violent extremism'' all the while their governments fuel
``violent Islamism''. It is heartbreaking as an American Muslim to see
my own American democratic government invoke OIC-like blasphemy law
behaviors preventing the antiseptic of sunlight upon the Islamist ideas
which radicalize our co-religionists. With our founders' history in
defeating theocracy, Americans are uniquely qualified to understand the
battle against theocracy from within a faith. The best summary of the
influence of the OIC upon our public discourse regarding Islam is
Deborah Weiss' monograph, ``The Organization of Islamic Cooperation's
Jihad on Free Speech.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Weiss, Deborah Esq. The Organization of islamic Cooperation's
Jihad on Free Speech. June 6, 2015 [http://
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free-
_Speech_Jihad.pdf].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did we get here? Islamist Sympathizers within the administration
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson says that they use only the term
``violent extremism'' and have ``purged radical Islam from official
vocabulary at the request of Muslim leaders.''\17\ These unnamed Muslim
leaders must be Islamists since not one of our coalition of anti-
Islamist Muslim leaders of the Muslim Reform Movement were included in
any of the conversations that led to this policy and in fact Muslims
publicly identified with DHS are known Islamist leaders.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ FoxNews.com. Homeland Secretary Johnson suggests term `violent
extremism' used at behest of Muslim leaders. February 22, 2015. [http:/
/www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/22/homeland-secretary-johnson-
suggests-term-violent-extremism-used-at-behest.html].
\18\ Hoskinson, Charles. Obama kept reform Muslims out of summit on
extremism. Washington Examiner. February 21, 2015. [http://
www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-kept-reform-muslims-out-of-summit-on-
extremism/article/2560525].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial efforts to push the CVE narrative began with the DHS
``CVE Working Group'' which published its suggestions in Spring
2010.\19\ Among some of the members of the working group were Dalia
Mogahed, Mohamed Magid, and Mohamed Elibiary. A little review of their
history will reveal how these American Islamists likely influenced the
CVE narrative to the benefit of their own Islamist lobby. Dalia Mogahed
at the time was one of two Muslim members of Obama's faith advisory
council. But just a few months prior to participating in the DHS CVE
working group, Ms. Mogahed appeared on a British talk show sponsored by
the extremist pro-Caliphate Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, where she
explained that sharia law as practiced in the Islamic world are
understood by the majority of Muslim women to represent ``gender
justice with sharia compliance.''\20\ Mogahed later came out and
apologized for appearing on the program, but still doubled-down on her
remarks in support of sharia law.\21\ Her public positions have
routinely denied even the existence of Islamism as an ideology while
rejecting the voices and the need for reformers. Mohamed Magid at the
time served as president of the Islamic Society of North America
(ISNA). Magid's inclusion in the DHS CVE Working Group is remarkable
for the fact that just a few years prior, as Newsweek reported, the
Attorney General of the United States was having to cancel outreach
meetings solely for the reason of the presence of Magid at the
event.\22\ Several years prior, Magid was speaking at a forum at
Georgetown University where he dismissed the on-going genocide in
Darfur in his native Sudan, saying the multiple reports of genocide
were an ``exaggeration''.\23\ In March 2002, Magid's offices were
raided as part of the Operation Greenquest investigation.\24\ \25\ \26\
Surprisingly, TIME Magazine hailed Magid as ``An American Imam'' who
helped the FBI fight terrorism by reporting suspected extremists. And
yet the very day the TIME article appeared touting his cooperation with
the FBI, Magid sent an open letter to his mosque congregation telling
them that he, in fact, did not report any suspected extremists to the
FBI as the reporter had claimed (presumably told by Magid himself.\27\
Magid is a regular invitee to the annual Obama White House iftar
celebrations, which curiously exclude any pro-liberty Muslim leaders,
and yet his name has been left off the official published attendees
list due to controversies surrounding the imam.\28\ He has also been at
the forefront of many anti-liberty initiatives, such as calling for
using anti-discrimination laws to target critics of Islam and limiting
free speech \29\ and urging the dubious ``purge'' of FBI counter-
terrorism training materials.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group. Homeland
Security Advisory Council. Spring 2010. [https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/
assets/hsac_cve_working_group- _recommendations.pdf].
\20\ Gilligan, Andrew and Spillius Alex. Barack Obama adviser says
Shar'iah law is misunderstood. The Telegraph. Oct. 8, 2009. [http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-
says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html].
\21\ Gilgoff, Dan. White House Faith Advisor Defends Sharia
Remarks. USNews.com. October 22, 2009. [http://www.usnews.com/news/
blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/22/exclusive-white-house-faith-adviser-
defends-sharia-remarks].
\22\ Isikoff, Michael. Justice Abruptly cancelled `Muslim Outreach
Event' '' Newsweek. August 7, 2007. [http://www.newsweek.com/justice-
abruptly-cancelled-muslim-outreach-event-99685].
\23\ IPT News. The State Department's Poor Choices of Muslim
Outreach Emissaries. August 27, 2010. [http://
www.investigativeproject.org/2140/the-state-departments-poor-choices-
of-muslim].
\24\ Ahmad, Ayesha. Muslim community members encourage coalition-
building. IslamOnline.net. March 26, 2002. [https://web.archive.org/
web/20021027152835/http://www.islam-online.net/english/News/2002-04/10/
article08.shtml].
\25\ Program Circular of the Charitable Gift Fund. Charitable
Giving the Muslim Way.
\26\ Affidavit in support of application for search warrant. US
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
\27\ Letter from Mohamed Majid to ADAMS All Dulles Area Muslim
Society. Nov. 15, 2005. [http://web.archive.org/web/20060510074311/
http://www.adamscenter.org/Content.asp?ID- =226].
\28\ Munro, Neil. Obama's Iftar guest list omits controversial
attendees. Daily Caller. August 11, 2011. [http://dailycaller.com/2011/
08/11/obamas-iftar-guest-list-omits-controversial-attendees/].
\29\ Munro, Neil. Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice
Department. The Daily Caller. October 21, 2011. [http://
dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/progressives-islamists-huddle-at-justice-
department/].
\30\ ISNA and Nat. Orgs meet with FBI Dir. To Discuss Biased FBI
Training Materials. ISNA website. March 8, 2014. [http://
web.archive.org/web/20120216025316/http:/www.isna.net/articles/News/
ISNA--Nat-Orgs-Meet-with-FBI-Dir-to-Discuss-Biased-FBI-Training-
Materials.aspx].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Elibiary was another member of the DHS CVE Working group
and a former member of the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council until
he was removed for controversial comments such as saying that America
was an Islamic country and bragging about the inevitability of a
resurrected Islamic caliphate.\31\ \32\ \33\ Those comments were
cheered by ISIS recruiters on Twitter.\34\ But even at the time of his
appointment to the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Council his extremist
views were already well-known, such as his speech at a December 2004
event honoring the rabidly anti-American Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, an
event that the Dallas Morning News editorialized as a ``disgrace''.
Elibiary was also an enthusiastic public supporter of the Holy Land
Foundation, which was closed by a Presidential Executive Order in
December 2001 as a global terrorist financing organization that raised
millions of dollars for Hamas.\35\ \36\ Despite the convictions,
Elibiary continues to attack the prosecution and the decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court upholding the statute criminalizing the material
support for terrorism.\37\ Prior to his appointment by Janet Napolitano
to his DHS position he publicly feuded with a Dallas Morning News
editor in defense of hardline jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who the
9/11 Commission found was one of the most important influences in
shaping Osama bin Laden's worldview.\38\ \39\ \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Kredo, Adam. Controversial DHS Adviser Let Go amid allegations
of Cover Up. Elibiary let go after extremist rhetoric, claims he
improperly used classified docs. The Washington Free Beacon. September
15, 2014. [http://freebeacon.com/issues/controversial-dhs-adviser-let-
go-amid-allegations-of-cover-up/].
\32\ Kredo, Adam. DHS adviser tweets: America ``an Islamic
country'': controversial adviser sympathetic to Muslim Brotherhood. The
Washington Free Beacon. November 1, 2013. [http://freebeacon.com/
national-security/dhs-adviser-tweets-america-an-islamic-country/].
\33\ Kredo, Adam. Senior DHS adviser: ``Inevitable that Caliphate
returns'' The Washington Free Beacon. June 16, 2014. [http://
freebeacon.com/national-security/senior-dhs-adviser-brags-inevitable-
that-caliphate-returns/].
\34\ Kredo, Adam. DHS Adviser's Anti-America tweets celebrated by
ISIS Terrorists. Elibiary's controversial tweets coopted by terrorists.
The Washington Free Beacon. June 19, 2014.
[http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/06/homeland-security-advisor-supports-
convicted-terrorist-fundraiser/].
\35\ Johnson, Charles. Homeland Security Advisor supports convicted
terrorist fundraiser. The Daily Caller. October 6, 2013.
\36\ DOJ press release. Federal Judge hands down sentences in Holy
Land Foundation case. May 27, 2009.
\37\ Elibiary, Mohamed. Verdict misinterprets `material support'
Dallas Morning News. June 24, 2010. [dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/
2010/06/24/Mohamed-Elibiary-Verdict-misinterprets-4772].
\38\ Dreher, Rod. Sayyid Qutb's purpose driven life. The Dallas
Morning News. August 28, 2006.
\39\ Elibiary, Mohamed. It's a mistake to assassinate Anwar al-
Awlaki. FoxNews.com. April 16, 2010. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/
2010/04/16/mohamed-elibiary-alawlaki-assassinate-muslims-war-terror-
nsc.html].
\40\ Shane, Scott. The Lessons of Anwar al-Awlaki. New York Times
Magazine. August 27, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim
Public Affairs Council (MPAC) are two of the many Muslim Brotherhood
legacy groups in America. They have typically generically renounced the
use of terror and violence, but they have never taken a public position
against the ideology of Political Islam (Islamism) and have as a matter
of policy sought to obstruct any emphasis on the role of ``radical
Islam'' and Islamism in radicalization. They both have also been some
of the primary antagonists to efforts by law enforcement to understand
and mitigate the real stages of radicalization of Muslims in America.
In 2007, under the umbrella of the Muslim American Civil Liberties
Coalition (MACLC), CAIR-NY and MPAC-NY authored ``Counterterrorism
policy, MACLC's critique of the NYPD's report on homegrown
radicalism.''\41\ The paper is a response to NYPD's report
``Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat.''\42\ In it, the
organizations lay out their belief that, ``The study of violent
extremism, however, should decouple religion from terror to safeguard
civil liberties on free speech and equal protection grounds as a matter
of strong public policy.'' These Islamist groups then spearheaded a
successful effort to purge the NYPD of their seminal counter-terrorism
documents endorsed by our Muslim Reform Movement. As part of a
settlement agreement the NYPD was forced to remove the publication from
its database and got not to rely on it in the future.\43\ I have
attached the full report of the NYPD Report on ``Radicalization in the
West: the Homegrown Threat,'' because of the value it serves (Appendix
3). This effort by American Islamist groups is emblematic of the role
they have played inside and outside of Government in suppressing
American understanding of the radical Islam. CAIR was revealed in the
The Holy Land Foundation trial as part of a network of Islamist
organizations in the United States which grew out of American
sympathizers with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. The father of them
all is the Muslim Students' Association and from it has sprouted a
whole host of Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in America. Steven
Merley describes the Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States in
his monograph.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Counterterrorism Policy. MACLC's Critique of the NYPD's Report
on Homegrown Radicalism. Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition.
CAIR-NY. Fauzia N. Ali, Sarah SAYEED, Aliya Latif. 2008.
\42\ Silber, Mitchell D. And Bhatt, Arvin. Radicalization in the
West: The Homegrown Threat. NYPD Intelligence Division. Police
Department, City of New York. 2007. [http://sethgodin.typepad.com/
seths_blog/files/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf] (Accessed
June 26, 2016).
\43\ Kredo, Adam. Court Requires NYPD to Purge Docs on Terrorists
Inside U.S. The Washington Free Beacon. January 18, 2016. [http://
freebeacon.com/national-security/court-requires-nypd-purge-docs-
terrorists-inside-us/].
\44\ Merley, Steven. The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.
Center on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World. Hudson
Institute. 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salam al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council
(MPAC), is one of the closest Muslim advisers to the White House and is
reportedly playing a crucial role in advising the Department of
Homeland Security on its ``countering violent extremism'' (CVE)
policies. Marayati was one of the invited participants in President
Obama's February 2015 White House Summit on Countering Violent
Extremism.\45\ \46\ \47\ \48\ In April 24, 2014, the White House and
MPAC co-hosted a forum on American Muslim women.\49\ MPAC is also
identified by the FBI as one of its official ``outreach'' partners.\50\
This has carried over into the Clinton campaign. On March 2016,
Marayati participated in a roundtable event with Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton \51\ Marayati's close
association with the Hillary Clinton campaign is noteworthy in that
during her husband's administration, Marayati had his nomination to a
U.S. Government terrorism commission withdrawn by House Minority Leader
Richard Gephardt after criticism from former FBI Counterterrorism
Section Chief Steven Pomerantz and Jewish groups who noted his open
support for Hamas and Hezbollah\52\ In a press release by the Journal
for Counterterrorism and Security International documented MPAC and
Marayati's long-time support for terrorism and public defense of
terrorism suspects.\53\ That support for extremism continues up until
today. In 2010, former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy documented
Marayati and MPAC's long history of extremism.\54\ \55\ \56\ In October
2012, the State Department has also selected Marayati to represent the
United States as part of the official delegation to a 10-day OSCE human
rights conference.\57\ \58\ After protests by Jewish groups about his
appointment to the delegation, a State Department spokesman defended
Marayati, calling him ``valued and highly credible''.\59\ Perhaps most
perplexing in light of his previous removal from the Clinton
administration terrorism commission is the role that MPAC has played in
directing the Obama administration to purge counter-terrorism training
and trainers who discuss the role of radical Islam. To that end,
Marayati penned an op-ed in the LA Times threatening that non-
compliance by National security and law enforcement agencies to conduct
such a ``purge'' endangered their relationship with the
administration.\60\ Marayati's organization signed their name to a
letter to then-White House Counterterrorism czar John Brennan demanding
such a purge.\61\ One of the most telling events was the 2-day DHS
Muslim engagement meeting held in late January 2010 marking the
escalation of engagement with United States Islamist groups.\62\ The
discussion between DHS officials on who to invite uncovered by a
Judicial Watch FOIA request on the meeting shows that many of the
attendees came from Muslim Brotherhood-aligned organizations.\63\ The
results of this meeting established the Obama administration's policy
of embracing Islamist groups in favor of more reform-minded Islamic
organizations. This policy was officially established in 2011 when DHS
civil Rights and Civil Liberties circulated a memorandum, ``Countering
Violent Extremism Dos and Don'ts,'' that expressly warns local and
National law enforcement agencies against using moderate Muslim
``trainers who are self-professed `Muslim reformers' '' because they
``may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally
accepted, unbiased information.''\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ McCarthy, Andrew. C. Find the ``Countering Violent Extremism
Summit'' at the Intersection of Islamists and Leftists. National
Review. February 19, 2015. [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/
414064/find-countering-violent-extremism-summit-intersection-islamists-
and-leftists-andrew-c].
\46\ Kredo, Adam. Muslim Leader who called Israel a `suspect' after
9/11 meets with Biden at White House'' The Washington Free Beacon.
February 18, 2015. [http://freebeacon.com/national-security/muslim-
leader-who-called-israel-a-suspect-after-911-meets-with-biden-at-white-
house/].
\47\ Twitter. MPAC February 17, 2015 [https://twitter.com/
mpac_national/status/567785207940792320].
\48\ 2010 White House Iftar. MPAC website. August 14, 2010. [http:/
/www.mpac.org/multimedia-old/photos-old/2010-white-house-iftar.php]
August 11, 2011. [http://www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations/
white-house-iftar-dinner-attended-by-haris-tarin-mpacs-director-of-the-
dc-office.php] August 16, 2012. [http://www.mpac.org/programs/
government-relations/mpac-board-chair-reflects-on-attending-white-
house-iftar.php] June 23, 2015 [http://www.mpac.org/blog/meeting-the-
president-at-the-white-house-iftar.php].
\49\ MPAC website. MPAC Partners with the White House Hosting
Groundbreaking Women's Forum. April 17, 2014. [http://www.mpac.org/
issues/womens-empowerment/mpac-partners-with-the-white-house-hosting-
groundbreaking-womens-forum.php].
\50\ FBI Community Outreach Partners. (Accessed June 27, 2016).
\51\ MPAC website. MPAC President Speaks at Roundtable with Hillary
Clinton. March 25, 2016. [http://www.mpac.org/policy-analysis/mpac-
president-discusses-partnership-with-hillary-clinton.php] Video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u__WYnM3wbY].
\52\ Goodstein, Laurie. Gephardt Bows to Jews' Ange over a Nominee.
New York Times. July 9, 1999. Also see CNN [http://web.archive.org/web/
20081211110250/http:/www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/29/
terrorism.commission/index.html].
\53\ Does Salam al-Marayati Support Terrorism? You make the call.
The Journal of Counter-terrorism and Security International. July 9,
1999 [http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/does-salam-al-marayati-
support-terrorism-you-make-the-call-73539887.html].
\54\ McCarthy, Andrew. MPAC History. National Review. August 7,
2012 [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/313257/history-mpac-andrew-
c-mccarthy].
\55\ ADL New Blood Libel: Jews Accused of Harvesting Organs. MPAC
[http://archive.adl.org/nr/exeres/a3d52d61-a5a0-46a4-96c2-
6abcb54d33ca,8c8c250f-da79-405f-b716-d4409cab5396,- frameless.html].
\56\ MPAC website. Israel Admits Harvesting Palestinian organs.
December 21, 2009 [http://www.mpac.org/programs/government-relations/
mpac-represents-us-government-at-human-rights-conference.php].
\57\ Kredo, Adam. Anti-Israel Advocate Reps U.S. At Rights
Conference. MPAC represents. The Washington Free Beacon. October 3,
2012
\58\ MPAC website. MPAC Represents US Government at human rights
conference.
\59\ Kredo, Adam. State Department stands by their man. The
Washington Free Beacon. October 4, 2012 [http://freebeacon.com/
national-security/state-stands-by-its-man/].
\60\ Marayati, Salam. The Wrong Way to Fight Terrorism. LA Times.
October 19, 2011 [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/19/opinion/la-
oe-almarayati-fbi-20111019].
\61\ Muslim Advocates website. Letter to DHS John Brennan on FBI
use of biased experts and training materials. [https://
www.muslimadvocates.org/letter-to-dhs-john-brennan-on-fbis-use-of-
biased-experts-and-training-materials/].
\62\ DHS Readout. Readout of Secretary Napolitano's Meeting with
Faith-Based and Community Leaders. January 28, 2010. [https://
www.dhs.gov/news/2010/01/28/readout-secretary-napolitanos-meeting-
faith-based-and-community-leaders].
\63\ Judicial Watch Investigative Bulletin. DHS Secretary
Napolitano and Controversial Islamic Community Leaders' Meeting
Documents. December 9, 2011. [http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/
dhs-secretary-napolitano-and-controversial-islamic-].
\64\ Johnson, Charles. Homeland Security guidelines advise
deference to pro-Shar'iah Muslim Supremacists. The Daily Caller. May
17, 2013. [http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/homeland-security-
guidelines-advise-deference-to-pro-sharia-muslim-supremacists/].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIR
One of the most obvious beneficiaries of this embrace of Islamist
groups has been the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
During the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial,
CAIR was directly implicated by Federal prosecutors in the Muslim
Brotherhood's U.S. Palestine Committee conspiracy to provide ``media,
money, and men'' to Hamas.\65\ During the course of the trial it was
reported that CAIR, among other U.S. Islamic groups including ISNA, had
been named unindicted co-conspirator in the case.\66\ During the trial
itself, FBI Special Agent Lara Burns testified under oath that CAIR was
a front group for Hamas.\67\ Just weeks after the jury in the Holy Land
Foundation case found the defendants guilty on all counts, the FBI
quietly announced a policy to not have any official contact with
CAIR.\68\ \69\ \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ ACLU Files USA v. Holy Land Foundation CR No. 3:04-CR-240-P.
[https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/
asset_upload_file142_36171.pdf#page=13].
\66\ Gerstein, Josh. Islamic Groups named in Hamas Funding Case. NY
Sun. June 4, 2007. [http://www.nysun.com/national/islamic-groups-named-
in-hamas-funding-case/55778/].
\67\ Crime Blog. FBI: CAIR is a front group, and Holy Land
Foundation tapped Hamas clerics for fundraisers. Dallas Morning News.
Oct. 7, 2008 [http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2008/10/fbi-cair-is-a-
front-group-and.html/].
\68\ Abrams, Joseph. FBI Cuts ties to CAIR following terror
financing trial. FoxNews.com. January 30, 2009. [http://
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/fbi-cuts-ties-cair-following-
terror-financing-trial.html].
\69\ Judge's ruling on Islamic Group made public. Politico.com
[http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2010/11/judges-ruling-
on-islamic-groups-as-unindicted-co-conspirators-made-public-030922].
\70\ Peter King questions decision not to prosecute CAIR. Politico
[http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2011/04/peter-king-
questions-decision-not-to-prosecute-cair-others-035104].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Obama administration began deleting the term ``Islamist''
from usage in defense and National security policy documents in favor
of ``violent extremists,'' CAIR publicly cheered the change.\71\ \72\
More recently it has tried to eliminate the use of ``Islamist'' in
public discourse, particularly the media, which ends up conflating the
hardcore political Islam ideology embraced by CAIR, ISNA, and other
more extreme Islamic groups from more mainstream interpretations.\73\
CAIR took a lead in publicly attacking U.S. Government counter-
terrorism training, signing onto the October 2011 demand letter sent to
the White House by 57 Islamic groups demanding a training ``purge.''
During the investigation into the dozens of young Somali men who had
left the Minneapolis area to travel to Somalia to fight with the al-
Shabaab terror group, friends and relatives of the missing men publicly
accused CAIR of interfering in the investigation and protested CAIR's
attempts to silence family members from asking questions about how
their loved ones had been recruited.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Terror Reviews avoid word ``Islamist''. Washington Times.
February 12, 2010. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/12/
violent-extremists-but-not-islamists/].
\72\ End to Loaded Islamic terms welcomed. [http://www.upi.com/
Top_News/Special/2010/04/08/End-to-loaded-Islamic-terms-welcomed/
23761270739326/].
\73\ Hanchett, Ian. CAIR Comm Director: Term ``Islamists'' used as
pejorative. Breitbart.com Jan 19, 2015. [http://www.breitbart.com/
video/2015/01/19/cair-comm-director-term-islamists-used-as-pejorative/
].
\74\ Somalis take to the street to protest group's actions.. Star
Tribune.com June 12, 2009 [http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2009/Jun/11060/
somalis_take_to_the_street_to_protest- _group_s_actions.aspx].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both CAIR and MPAC attacked me and other Muslim reformers including
Asra Nomani and Qanta Ahmed in the prelude leading up to our testimony
on Muslim Radicalization to the Homeland Security Committee of the
House in March 2011. In a form of subtle takfirism, never dealing with
the substance of our testimony, they cast the hearings which included
only Muslim witnesses in the first panel for the Republicans as ``Rep.
Peter King's Anti-Muslim Congressional Hearings.''\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Rep. Peter King's Anti-Muslim Congressional Hearings. CAIR.com
June 2012.
[https://www.cair.com/14-islamophobia/11638-rep-peter-king-s-anti-
muslim-congressional-hearings.html].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The group also came under fire in January 2011 when one of its
local affiliates circulated a poster ominously warning the Muslim
community, ``Don't talk to the FBI.'' They predictably claimed that the
poster had been ``taken out of context.''\76\ Despite the open
hostility from CAIR and in violation of stated FBI policy, several FBI
field offices flagrantly violated the ban on official contact with CAIR
a Justice Department Inspector General investigation found.\77\ Members
of Congress called for punishment for FBI officials who defied the CAIR
official contact ban, which never came.\78\ The Obama administration
and top Democratic Party leaders also failed to follow the direction of
the FBI to stay away from CAIR, with top CAIR officials directly
implicated in the Holy Land Foundation case showing up at party
fundraisers.\79\ A senior White House official admitted that the
administration had ``hundreds'' of meetings with CAIR despite the FBI
official contact policy ban.\80\ In November 2014, the United Arab
Emirates named CAIR and another U.S. Islamic group, the Muslim American
Society, as terrorist organizations as part of their ban on
international Muslim Brotherhood groups.\81\ While CAIR may eschew
violence of many Islamist groups, this designation speaks to their
known common ideological streaming across the Middle East and OIC with
Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood.\82\ The unashamed
empowerment, embrace, and rehabilitation of CAIR by the Obama
administration in the face of a continued rejection by the FBI and
CAIR's direct complicity in supporting terrorism as successfully argued
by Federal prosecutors in Federal court has come at the expense of the
influence of more mainstream Islamic organizations like our Muslim
Reform Movement in shaping U.S. Government counterterrorism policies
and community engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Starnes, Todd. CAIR Says Poster Warning against helping FBI is
Misinterpreted. Foxnews.com. Jan. 13, 2011. [http://www.foxnews.com/us/
2011/01/13/cair-says-anti-fbi-poster-misinterpreted.html].
\77\ Review of FBI interactions with CAIR. US Department of
Justice. September 2013. [http://www.investigativeproject.org/4165/
wolf-demands-fbi-punish-agents-for-cair-contact].
\78\ IPT News. Wolf Demands FBI Punish Agents for CAIR Contact.
Investigative Project on Terrorism. September 19, 2013. [http://
www.investigativeproject.org/4165/wolf-demands-fbi-punish-agents-for-
cair-contact].
\79\ Munro, Neil. Pelosi holds secret fundraiser with Islamists,
Hamas-linked groups. The Daily Caller. Nov. 2, 2012. [http://
dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/pelosi-holds-secret-fundraiser-with-
islamists-hamas-linked-groups/].
\80\ Munro, Neil. Administration admits to ``hundreds'' of meetings
with jihad-linked group. The Daily Caller. June 8, 2012. [http://
dailycaller.com/2012/06/08/administration-admits-to-hundreds-of-
meetings-with-jihad-linked-group/].
\81\ UAE publishes list of terrorist organizations. Gulf News.
November 15, 2014. [http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/government/uae-
publishes-list-of-terrorist-organisations-1.1412895].
\82\ US Govt pledges to work with CAIR, MAS on UAE Designation.
CAIR.com Dec. 22, 2014. [http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-
releases/12783-us-government-pledges-to-work-with-cair-mas-on-uae-
designation.html].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion: shift globally from countering violent extremism (cve) to
countering violent islamism (cvi)
The importance of identifying the theo-political precursors of
militant Islamists could not be more clear to our security and our
domestic and global counter-terrorism strategy. Any attempt to purge
the discourse of an understanding of the Islamist precursors is
dishonest, empowers the Islamist movements domestically and abroad, and
marginalizes our greatest allies--reform-minded anti-Islamist Muslims.
De-emphasizing radical Islam keeps our security agencies in the dark
while Islamist precursor warnings are ignored in the public. The de-
emphasis makes us far more vulnerable than we should be and it also is
a primary obstacle to enabling the very reforms and reformers that
would otherwise bring forth the end of radical Islamism. Every massacre
from Fort Hood to Boston to Chattanooga to San Bernardino and now
Orlando is fraught with commonalities and lessons we ignore at our own
plight. We must treat our Muslim communities with a tough love. I give
the following recommendations:
1. Transition immediately from a center of gravity on ``Countering
Violent Extremism'' (CVE) to one centered on ``Countering
Violent Islamism'' (CVI).
2. The U.S. Government and public discourse (academia, NGO's, and
media) must include a broad spectrum of ideologically diverse
voices in the Muslim community. It is time to end the un-
democratic ban on any theological terms and with that also end
the marginalization of reform-minded Muslims most notably the
bipartisan group of Muslim leaders of the Muslim Reform
Movement.
3. It is time to stop engaging Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in
Government and media and recognize their misogynist, anti-
Semitic, homophobic, and anti-American ideological
underpinnings. We must recognize that they are not the only
voice for American Muslims. We must make women's issue and
freedom of conscience a litmus test. These groups, when
pressed, will fail.
4. It is time to stop giving credence to the concerns of OIC
dictatorships about our word choices and counter-radicalization
strategies. Our real allies abroad are the free thinkers in
their prisons not in their palaces.
5. As uncomfortable as it may be to speak the language of the
enemy, they do call themselves Islamists and effectively
separate themselves from other Muslims. We must identify them
as Islamists drawing a clear line.
6. I ask that you re-open the investigation into CAIR's radical
ties, and into their extensive domestic and foreign network of
foundations and poorly-hidden branches.
7. I ask that you no longer fear offending by using these terms.
Those oppressed by Islamism--including many Muslims--depend on
your honesty. Homeland security depends upon your honesty in
order for the American people to hold them accountable to the
natural precursors of violent Islamism.
______
Appendix 1.--Statement of the Muslim Reform Movement
May 27, 2016
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
Assalamu aleikum wa ramatullahi wa baraktuhu. We write as fellow
Muslims concerned with the state of our community, and of the broader
ummah--humankind. Like you, our faith is very important to us.
Important enough that we wish to seek solutions to the problems facing
our community so that peace and mercy prevail.
Tragically, our community is plagued with problems--problems we can
no longer minimize and certainly cannot ignore. Assuring those who are
not Muslim that the problems we face have ``nothing to do with Islam''
doesn't just fail to solve these problems. This response shirks our
responsibility to address crises within our communities and actually
promotes tensions between ourselves and others. Ultimately, denial and
inaction also promote anti-Muslim bigotry.
Now is the time to act. As violence continues to be carried out in
the name of our faith--from Paris to Beirut and Nigeria, from city
squares to family homes--our moral courage and fortitude are more
important than ever. As faithful Muslims committed to universal human
rights, and the principles of mercy and peace, we invite you to sign
onto our declaration for Muslim reform.
This declaration, which we attach, is being sent to Muslim leaders
in America and around the world. It is a public statement in support of
gender equality, non-violence, secular governance and authentic social
justice.
The list of fellow Muslims to whom we are sending this letter will
be made available to the public, as will responses and the names of
signatories to the declaration. We look forward to your support and
public commitment to these values. Please respond at the email and
snail mail addresses below.
Sincerely yours,
Founders of the Muslim Reform Movement.
______
Preamble
We are Muslims who live in the 21st Century. We stand for a
respectful, merciful, and inclusive interpretation of Islam. We are in
a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the
ideology of Islamism, or politicized Islam, which seeks to create
Islamic states, as well as an Islamic caliphate. We seek to reclaim the
progressive spirit with which Islam was born in the 7th Century to fast
forward it into the 21st Century. We support the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which was adopted by United Nations member states in
1948.
We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence,
social injustice, and politicized Islam. Facing the threat of
terrorism, intolerance, and social injustice in the name of Islam, we
have reflected on how we can transform our communities based on three
principles: Peace, human rights, and secular governance. We are
announcing today the formation of an international initiative: The
Muslim Reform Movement.
We have courageous reformers from around the world who have written
our Declaration for Muslim Reform, a living document that we will
continue to enhance as our journey continues. We invite our fellow
Muslims and neighbors to join us.
Declaration
A. Peace: National Security, Counterterrorism, and Foreign
Policy
1. We stand for universal peace, love, and compassion. We reject
violent jihad. We believe we must target the ideology of
violent Islamist extremism, in order to liberate individuals
from the scourge of oppression and terrorism both in Muslim-
majority societies and the West.
2. We stand for the protection of all people of all faiths and non-
faith who seek freedom from dictatorships, theocracies, and
Islamist extremists.
3. We reject bigotry, oppression, and violence against all people
based on any prejudice, including ethnicity, gender, language,
belief, religion, sexual orientation, and gender expression.
B. Human Rights: Women's Rights and Minority Rights
1. We stand for human rights and justice. We support equal rights
and dignity for all people, including minorities. We support
the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
2. We reject tribalism, castes, monarchies, and patriarchies and
consider all people equal with no birth rights other than human
rights. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights. Muslims don't have an exclusive right to ``heaven.''
3. We support equal rights for women, including equal rights to
inheritance, witness, work, mobility, personal law, education,
and employment. Men and women have equal rights in mosques,
boards, leadership, and all spheres of society. We reject
sexism and misogyny.
B. Secular Governance: Freedom of Speech and Religion
1. We are for secular governance, democracy, and liberty. We are
against political movements in the name of religion. We
separate mosque and state. We are loyal to the nations in which
we live. We reject the idea of the Islamic state. There is no
need for an Islamic caliphate. We oppose institutionalized
sharia. Sharia is man-made.
2. We believe in life, joy, free speech, and the beauty all around
us. Every individual has the right to publicly express
criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have
rights. We reject blasphemy laws. They are a cover for the
restriction of freedom of speech and religion. We affirm every
individual's right to participate equally in ijtihad, or
critical thinking, and we seek a revival of ijtihad.
3. We believe in freedom of religion and the right of all people to
express and practice their faith, or non-faith, without threat
of intimidation, persecution, discrimination or violence.
Apostasy is not a crime. Our ummah--our community--is not just
Muslims, but all of humanity.
We stand for peace, human rights, and secular governance. Please
stand with us!
Affirmed this Fourth Day of December, Two-Thousand and Fifteen by
the founding authors who are signatories below
Founding Signatories
Tahir Gora
Author, Journalist, Activist, Toronto, Canada
Tawfik Hamid
Islamic Thinker and Reformer, Oakton, VA, USA
Usama Hasan
Imam, Quilliam Foundation, London, UK
Arif Humayun
Senior Fellow, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Portland, OR,
USA
Farahnaz Ispahani
Author, Former Member of Parliament, Pakistan, Washington, DC, USA
M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D.
President, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Phoenix, AZ USA
Naser Khader
Member, Danish Parliament, Muslim democracy activist, Copenhagen,
Denmark
Courtney Lonergan
Community Outreach Director, American Islamic Forum for Democracy,
Professional facilitator
Hasan Mahmud
Resident expert in sharia, Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Toronto, Canada
Asra Nomani
Journalist, Author, Morgantown, WV, USA
Raheel Raza
Founder, Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Toronto, Canada
Sohail Raza
Vice President, Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim
Organizations
Salma Siddiqui
President, Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations,
Toronto, Canada
. . affirmed at 8 AM this Fourth Day of December, Two-Thousand and
Fifteen
______
Appendix 2.--``It's Salafi-Jihadist Insurgency, Stupid!'', A Policy
Briefing by Quilliam*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attachment is retained in Committee files and is available at
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/press/its-a-salafi-jihadist-
insurgency-stupid/.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Dr. Jasser.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Aziz for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SAHAR F. AZIZ, PROFESSOR OF LAW, TEXAS A&M
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Aziz. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. For over 15
years I have worked with Muslim communities in America in
various capacities, including as a civil rights lawyer and as a
senior policy advisor for the Office of Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Currently, I am a professor at Texas A&M University School
of Law where I teach and research at the intersection of
National security and civil liberties. The opinions I express
today are my own. I ask that my testimony be admitted into the
record.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Aziz. I want to address four key issues. First,
countering violent extremism programs are counterproductive as
they feed the Daesh's narrative that America is at war with
Islam. Second, CVE programs are unnecessary. Third, they are a
waste of Government resources. Fourth, funds for community
development and resilience programs should be administered by
social service agencies without law enforcement control.
National security is a priority that crosses partisan
lines. Americans of all races, ethnicities, and religions are
equally concerned with ensuring our country is safe from
violence, whether politically-motivated terrorism, State
violence, or violent crime.
Furthermore, we all share an interest in preventing
violence before it occurs. As citizens and elected officials,
we have a responsibility to carefully examine whether the
methods we are using to prevent terrorism are effective.
Using ``Islamic'' to label terrorism and terrorists is
counterproductive because we give Daesh exactly what it wants--
legitimacy. Daesh wants to be called Islamic because 99.9
percent of the 1.5 billion Muslims across the world reject them
and refuse to bestow them with the authority to represent them.
Hence, when we call them Islamic terrorists, they win the war
of ideas.
Second, using a religious identity to label a criminal is a
slippery slope to calling criminals Christian terrorists,
Jewish terrorists, or other religious labels based on a
suspect's characteristics or ideology. This has serious adverse
consequences on religious freedom and imposes guilt by
association on faith communities in the United States. It is
just a matter of time before a Muslim terrorist eventually is
used as a basis to call someone a Christian terrorist.
Now the Obama administration's CVE programs are managed and
funded by DHS and DOJ. As a result, they securitize Government-
community relations such that Muslims are perceived and engaged
with primarily through a security lens. Muslim Americans are
treated as potential terrorists first and citizens second.
Such securitized treatment of an entire religious community
is counterproductive. CVE signals to the public that Muslims
warrant collective suspicion. According to a December 2015
Gallup poll, 43 percent of Americans harbor prejudice toward
Muslims. These biases have been contributing toward an alarming
spike in anti-Muslim discrimination and hate crimes. Among the
most troubling trends is the bullying of Muslim students.
In 2016 a survey in California of more than 600 Muslim
American students in middle and high school found that 55
percent reported being bullied or discriminated against, twice
the number of students nationally who reported being bullied.
Additionally, a report by California State University found
that anti-Muslim hate crimes increased 78 percent in 2015, at
196 compared to 110 hate crimes in 2014.
International terrorists point to discrimination and
selective government targeting of Muslims in their recruiting
efforts to gain followers and sympathy for their perverse
political agenda. Daesh, in particular, relies on
marginalization and alienation to fuel its narrative that
America is at war with Islam.
Moreover, CVE programs are unnecessary to preserve American
National security. Muslims, like all other Americans, do not
need a special program for them to be Good Samaritans that
report suspicious criminal activity about which they have
knowledge.
A 2016 Duke University report found that Muslim communities
across the country have a positive relationship with police and
that they are willing to engage with police departments based
on principles of fairness and equal treatment.
According to the New America Foundation, approximately 60
percent of terrorism plots have been prevented due to
traditional investigative methods of which 18 percent of those
cases were solved by initial tips from Muslim communities
without the need for costly and counterproductive CVE programs.
CVE is also a waste of resources because Muslim Americans
know less about potential plots by individuals acting alone, in
secret and on-line than law enforcement agencies with a
sophisticated array of law enforcement tools and investigative
tools. For example, the Boston Marathon bombing, Orlando and
San Bernardino mass shootings, and attempted Times Square
bombing were all perpetrated by individuals whose families and
friends were as shocked to discover their illicit acts as any
other American.
In conclusion, the tens of millions of dollars spent on CVE
programs are better spent on programs administered by social
service agencies with the expertise to assist the multitude of
American communities in need of job training, mental health
services, refugee resettlement, youth programs, and other
services that promote safe and healthy communities.
Muslim Americans have made significant contributions to our
society and our economy as doctors, teachers, engineers,
politicians, and entrepreneurs. They deserve to be treated with
the same dignity, equality, and presumption of innocence as all
other Americans. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Aziz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sahar F. Aziz\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The viewpoints expressed here are solely those of the author
and do not represent the viewpoints or positions of Texas A&M
University School of Law, the Brookings Doha Center, or the Institute
for Social Policy and Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 22, 2016
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the committee: Thank you
for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Management Efficiency in the U.S. Homeland Security Committee. For over
15 years, I have worked with Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities
in the United States in various capacities including as a community
advocate, civil rights lawyer, and Senior Policy Advisor for the Office
of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security.
Currently, I am a professor of law at Texas A&M University School
of Law,\2\ a non-resident fellow with the Brookings Doha Center, and
scholar at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. My
research focuses on law and policy the intersection of National
security and civil liberties with a focus on Muslim, Arab, and South
Asian communities in the United States.\3\ In addition, I research the
relationship between, rule of law, authoritarianism, and terrorism in
the Middle East\4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Texas A&M School of Law, Faculty Profiles, Sahar F. Aziz,
http://law.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/find-people/faculty-profiles/sahar-
aziz. See also Sahar F. Aziz's Scholarly Papers, SOCIAL SCIENCES
RESEARCH NETWORK, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/
AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1459001.
\3\ See, e.g., Sahar F. Aziz, Policing Terrorists in the Community,
5 Harv. Nat'l Sec. L.J. 147 (2014); Sahar Aziz, Caught in a Preventive
Dragnet: Selective Counterterrorism in a Post-9/11 America, 47 Gonz. L.
Rev. 429 (2011/2012); Sahar Aziz, Federal Civil Rights Engagement with
Arab and Muslim American Communities Post 9/11, 18 J. Gender Race &
Just. 1 (2015); Sahar Aziz, Security and Technology: Rethinking
National Security, 2 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 7791 (2015); Sahar F. Aziz, From
the Oppressed to the Terrorist: Muslim American Women Caught in the
Crosshairs of Intersectionality, 9 HASTINGS R. & POV. L. J. 1 (2012).
\4\ See, e.g., Sahar Aziz, Independence Without Accountability: The
Judicial Paradox of Egypt's Failed Transition to Democracy, 120 Penn
St. L. Rev. 101 (2016); Sahar Aziz, Bringing Down an Uprising: Egypt's
Stillborn Revolution, 30 Conn. J. Int'l L. 1 (2014); Sahar Aziz,
Revolution Without Reform? A Critique of Egypt's Election Laws, 45
George Washington Int'l L. Rev. (2012); Sahar Aziz, Egypt's Protracted
Revolution, 19 No. 3 Hum. Rts. Brief 1 (2012); Sahar Aziz, Linking
Intellectual Property Rights with Research and Development, Technology
Transfer, and Foreign Investment: A Case Study of Egypt's
Pharmaceutical Industry, 10 ILSA J. of Int'l & Comp. L. 1 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today is a based on my extensive experience working
with Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities as well as my academic
research examining the myriad ways our National security laws and
policies adversely impact these diverse communities' civil rights and
liberties. The opinions I am expressing in both my written and verbal
testimony are my own.
I want to address four key issues: (1) Countering Violent Extremism
(CVE) programs securitize Muslim communities and validate terrorists'
narratives that America is at war with Islam; (2) CVE programs are
unnecessary to prevent domestic terrorism; (3) CVE programs are a waste
of Government resources; and (4) Government funds for community
development and resilience should be funded and administered by social
service agencies without law enforcement control.
American National security is a priority that crosses partisan
lines. Americans of all races, ethnicities and religions are equally
concerned with ensuring our country is safe from violence--whether
politically-motivated terrorism, State violence, or violent crime.\5\
Furthermore, we all share an interest in preventing violence before it
occurs. Toward that end, as citizens and elected officials we have a
responsibility to carefully examine whether the methods we are using to
prevent terrorism are effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Although there is no single definition of terrorism in U.S. or
international law, I define terrorism here as an attack on civilians
for larger political objectives, whether couched in religious or
secular narratives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Obama administration has initiated a ``Countering Violent
Extremism'' program purportedly aimed at tackling the underlying causes
that may contribute to terrorism domestically and abroad. According to
the White House, ``CVE efforts address the root causes of extremism
through community engagement'' and ``the underlying premise of the
approach to countering violent extremism in the United States is that:
(1) Communities provide the solution to violent extremism; and (2) CVE
efforts are best pursued at the local level, tailored to local
dynamics, where local officials continue to build relationships within
their communities through established community policing and community
outreach mechanisms.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Press Release, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House,
FACT SHEET: The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism
(Feb. 18, 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/
18/fact-sheet-white-house-summit-countering-violent-extremism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the lofty rhetoric, these CVE programs are fundamentally
flawed for three reasons: They are counterproductive, unnecessary, and
a waste of Government resources. Government programs seeking to build
community resilience are most effective when administered by social
service agencies with the requisite expertise, not law enforcement
agencies.
First, CVE programs managed and funded by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice securitize
Government-community relations such that Muslims are perceived and
engaged with primarily through a security lens. Muslim Americans are
potential terrorists first, and citizens second. Such securitized
treatment of an entire religious community is counterproductive. Not
only does it risk innocent Americans' civil liberties and signal to the
public that Muslims warrant collective suspicion, but CVE focused on
Muslims confirms international terrorists' narratives that America is
at war with Islam. In turn, terrorists point to such religious
profiling and selective targeting of Muslims in their international
recruiting efforts to gain followers and sympathy for their perverse
political agenda.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ E.g.,Tiffany Ap, Al-Shabaab recruit video with Trump excerpt:
U.S. is racist, anti-Muslim, CNN (Jan. 3, 2016, 9:20 AM), http://
www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/middleeast/al-shabaab-video-trump/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, CVE programs are unnecessary to preserve American National
security. Muslims--like other Americans--do not need a special program
for them to be good Samaritans that report suspicious criminal activity
of which they have knowledge. Indeed, a Duke University report found
that Muslim communities across the country have a positive relationship
with their local police or express a willingness to engage with police
departments based on principles of fairness and equal treatment.\8\ And
according to the New America Foundation, approximately 60% of terrorism
plots have been prevented due to traditional investigative methods,
including about 18% by initial tips from Muslim communities without the
need for costly and counterproductive CVE programs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ David Schanzer, et al., Triangle Center on Terrorism and
Homeland Security, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University,
The Challenge and Promise of Using Community Policing Strategies to
Prevent Violent Extremism (2016), https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/
2016/05/The-Challenge-and-Promise-of-Using-Community-Policing-
Strategies-to-Prevent-Violent-Extremism.pdf.
\9\ Peter Bergen, David Sterman, Emily Schneider, & Bailey Cahall,
New America Foundation, Do NSA's Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop
Terrorists? 4-5 (2014), https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/
documents/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists; Michael
Hirsh, Inside the FBI's Secret Muslim Network: While candidates stoke
fears of Islam, a little-known counterterror program has been going
exactly the other way, Politico (Mar. 24, 2016), http://
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/fbi-muslim-outreach-terrorism-
213765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the tens of millions of dollars spent on CVE programs are
better spent on programs administered through social services agencies
with the expertise to assist the multitude of American communities in
need of job training, mental health services, domestic violence
prevention, English language training, refugee resettlement, youth
after-school programs, tutoring, and other services that promote safe
and healthy communities.\10\ To the extent the U.S. Government seeks to
engage in good-faith efforts to support the diverse Muslim American
communities, resources should be managed by institutions whose missions
are to develop communities, not prosecute and incarcerate individuals
based on racial and ethnic stereotypes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Jana Kasperkevic, Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty
in America, Guardian (Nov. 12, 2014 1:39 PM), https://
www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/social-welfare-
programs-food-stamps-reduce-poverty-america.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i cve programs securitize muslim communities and validate terrorists'
warped narratives that america is at war with islam
Terrorists thrive on narratives of oppression and injustice as a
means of recruiting vulnerable individuals. The particular narrative
selected is context-specific to the political, social, and economic
circumstances that give rise to a terrorist group. For al-Qaeda and
Da'esh (also known as ISIS or ISIL) based in the Middle East, a crucial
component of their recruitment narrative is that the West, and America
in particular, is at war with Islam.\11\ Terrorists claim that Muslims
are victims of Western hegemony in the Middle East through American
military intervention and financial support of dictators that violently
repress their Muslim citizens.\12\ Da'esh portrays its violence as part
of a defensive rather than offensive war where its leaders are the
heroic defenders of the Muslim world against Western colonization.\13\
In turn, Da'esh makes a call to arms for Muslims to kill civilians and
governments that it unilaterally declares as enemies. Among Da'esh's
declared enemies are mainstream American Muslim leaders who have openly
and repeatedly condemned Da'esh and rebuked its misinterpretation of
Islamic principles.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Madiha Afzal, How we all reinforce a narrative of Islam versus
the West, Brookings (Aug. 4, 2016), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/
order-from-chaos/2016/08/04/how-we-all-reinforce-a-narrative-of-islam-
versus-the-west/.
\12\ Matt Olson, Why ISIS Supports Donald Trump, Time (Sept. 8,
2016 9:31 AM), http://time.com/4480945/isis-donald-trump/; Tierney
Sneed & Lauren Fox, Why Some Jihadists Consider Donald Trump To Be The
Perfect Enemy, Talking Points Memo (June 30, 2016, 6:00 AM), http://
talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-extremist-web-forums.
\13\ Alex P. Schmid, Challenging the Narrative of the ``Islamic
State'', in Countering Violent Extremism: Developing an Evidence-base
for Policy and Practice 67 (Sara Zeiger & Anne Aly eds. 2015), https://
www.nla.gov.au/sites/default/files/webform/draft_cve_developing_an_evi-
dence-based_for_policy_and_practice.pdf.
\14\ Patrick Goodenough, ISIS Urges Supporters to Kill Muslim
`Infidels' in West, Including Congressman and Top Clinton Aide,
cnsnews.com (Apr. 13, 2016), http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/
patrick-goodenough/isis-urges-supporters-kill-named-muslim-infidels-
west-rep-ellison; See also Ian Reifowitz, Anti-ISIS Muslims face death
threats. Is that `enough' for Hannity and Trump lackey Ben Carson?,
Daily Kos (May 15, 2016), http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/15/
1525349/-Anti-ISIS-Muslims-face-death-threats-Is-that-enough-for-
Hannity-and-Trump-lackey-Ben-Carson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding Da'esh and other terrorist groups' attempts to use
religion as a justification for their politically-motivated violence,
their claims are rejected by nearly all of the 1.5 billion Muslims
across the world.\15\ Another often overlooked fact that contributes to
Da'esh's fringe status among the world's Muslims is that the vast
majority of victims of terrorism are Muslim. According to the National
Counter-terrorism Center's 2011 Report on Terrorism, in cases where the
religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined,
Muslims suffered between 82% and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities
during the prior 5 years and Muslim countries bore the brunt of the
attacks involving 10 or more deaths.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Willa Frej, How 70,000 Muslim Clerics Are Standing Up To
Terrorism, HUFFINGTON POST (Dec. 11, 2015), http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-clerics-condemn-
terrorism_us_566adfa1e4b009377b249dea[]
\16\ The Nat'l Counterterrorism Ctr., Report on Terrorism 14
(2011), https://fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debunking Da'esh's specious claims on the merits is beyond the
scope of my testimony, and already has been done by hundreds of
credible, mainstream Muslim scholars from across the world in the Open
Letter to Baghdadi.\17\ Moreover, Muslim communities and leaders across
the United States have rejected Da'esh's warped misappropriation of
Islamic doctrine for violent political ends.\18\ Thus, the issue before
us today is not whether Da'esh represents the 1.5 billion Muslims
across the world or the 3 to 6 million Muslims in America--the evidence
is clear that it does not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Open Letter to Al-Baghdadi (2014), http://
www.lettertobaghdadi.com/.
\18\ E.g., Stoyan Zaimov, Muslim-Americans Condemn ISIS in Phoenix
Billboard, Say Islam Is Religion of Peace, Not Terror, Christian Post
(Aug. 24, 2016, 11:17 AM), http://www.christianpost.com/news/muslim-
americans-condemn-isis-phoenix-billboard-islam-religion-peace-not-
terror-168487/ (Muslim-Americans post billboard reading ``HEY ISIS, YOU
SUCK!!!''); Omar Jimenez, Baltimore Muslims: Islam condemns ISIS,
terror attacks, WBAL-TV (Mar. 23, 2016, 6:16 PM), http://
www.wbaltv.com/news/baltimore-muslims-islam-condemns-isis-terror-
attacks/38661300; Alexandra Limon, Muslims rally outside White House
condemning ISIS, terrorism, (Nov. 20, 2015 11:30 PM), http://
www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/52446799-story; Tatiana Sanchez, San
Diego Muslims condemn Paris attacks, San Diego Union Tribune (Nov. 14,
2015, 8:38 PM), http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/sdut-cair-
anniversary-banquet-islamic-2015nov14-story.html; Shanika Gunaratna,
Muslim Americans rush to condemn Orlando massacre, CBS News (June 13,
2016 12:52 PM), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-
nightclub-muslims-condemn-attack/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather, the issue that should be of concern to Members of this
committee is ensuring that the American government does not adopt
counterproductive policies or practices that validate terrorists'
claims of a ``clash of civilization'' between the West and Islam.\19\
Religious profiling, racialized counterterrorism enforcement, and
discrimination against Muslims not only infringes on civil rights and
liberties of Muslims, but is also exploited by terrorist groups to
claim that Muslims are under attack and generate sympathy for their
cause.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Schmid, supra note 13; Terrence McCoy, The apocalyptic
magazine the Islamic State uses to recruit and radicalize foreigners,
Wash. Post (Sept. 16, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
morning-mix/wp/2014/09/16/the-apocalyptic-magazine-the-islamic-state-
uses-to-recruit-and-radicalize-foreigners/.
\20\ See Abbas Barzegar, Shawn Powers, & Nagham El Karhili, Civic
Approaches to Confronting Violent Extremism: Sector Recommendations and
Best Practices (Sept. 2016), http://www.britishcouncil.us/sites/
default/files/civic_approaches_to_confronting_violent_ex-
tremism_digital_release.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where current CVE programs are highly problematic. The
Government portrays CVE as a means to build community resilience and
development, separate from the dominant prosecution-driven
counterterrorism model. However, the record clearly shows that CVE is
an integral part of counterterrorism. Law enforcement agencies, not
social services agencies, are leading and funding CVE Nation-wide. DHS,
U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI lead Government meetings with Muslim
communities across the country.\21\ The institutional agendas of FBI
agents, Federal prosecutors, and DHS officials--not social service
agencies--shape CVE programs. For these reasons, the leading agencies
of the Federal interagency task force on CVE rotate between DHS and
DOJ--whose missions are to investigate, prosecute, and convict criminal
suspects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Community Outreach, FBI, https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-
offices/losangeles/community-outreach-1 (last visited Sept. 20, 2016);
Michael Hirsh, Inside the FBI's Secret Muslim Network: While candidates
stoke fears of Islam, a little-known counterterror program has been
going exactly the other way, Politico (Mar. 24, 2016), http://
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/fbi-muslim-outreach-terrorism-
213765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That U.S. Attorneys are leading Federal outreach at the local level
raises further questions as to the relationship between
counterterrorism enforcement and community engagement given that U.S.
Attorneys are also the lead prosecutors of anti-terrorism laws.\22\
Their participation as lead conveners of CVE meetings aggravates the
inherent divergence between Muslim communities' interests in protecting
their civil liberties and prosecutors' mandate to prosecute and show
tangible results in the form of convictions. That is, law enforcement-
led programs signal to Muslim communities that their community
development and resilience is not the Government's priority. Rather the
objective appears to be to deputize Muslim leaders to spy on each
other, thereby breeding distrust and divisiveness within Muslim
communities.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Laura Yuen, Muslims fear anti-terror program could spy on
their communities, MPR News (Jan. 30, 2015), http://www.mprnews.org/
story/2015/01/30/anti-terror-program; Mike German, Is the FBI's
Community Outreach Program a Trojan Horse?, ACLU (Feb. 15, 2013, 3:33
PM), https://www.aclu.org/blog/fbis-community-outreach-program-trojan-
horse; Paul McEnroe, Twin Cities Muslim leaders challenge federal
outreach effort as cloak for spying, Star Tribune (Feb. 17, 2015, 11:32
PM), http://www.startribune.com/area-muslim-leaders-call-federal-
outreach-cloak-for-spying/292307031/.
\23\ Sahar F. Aziz, Policing Terrorists in the Community, 5 Harv.
Nat'l Sec. L.J. 147 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While prosecution-driven counterterrorism is an integral part of
criminal enforcement, it should be conducted in accordance with civil
and Constitutional rights. Specifically, law enforcement should conduct
investigations based on individualized suspicion arising from predicate
acts of criminal activity, not a broad (and false) assumption that
Muslim communities en masse are ``at risk'' or ``vulnerable'' to
terrorist recruitment and susceptible to engaging in terrorism.
ii. cve signals to the public that muslims are a suspect community
leading to more discrimination and hate crimes
Like the United Kingdom's (UK) Prevent Program, which is the
blueprint on which the U.S. CVE program is based, CVE programs target
Muslim communities based on the false premise that Muslims are a
suspect community and fifth column in the United States.\24\ The U.K.
House of Commons found that Prevent's exclusive focus on Muslims was
stigmatizing, alienating, and counterproductive. The European
Parliament also found that soft counter-terrorism programs through
counter-radicalization initiatives (which is effectively what CVE is)
are detrimental to fostering community cohesion and do not succeed in
their stated objectives to prevent terrorism.\25\ Professor Arun
Kundnani, an expert on U.K. counterterrorism policy, warns that the
U.S. program would ``suffer from the same problems, such as drawing
non-policing professionals into becoming the eyes and ears of
counterterrorism surveillance, and thereby undermining professional
norms and relationships of trust among educators, health workers, and
others.''\26\ CVE also legitimizes discrimination against Muslims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Arun Kundnani, THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING: ISLAMOPHOBIA,
EXTREMISM, AND THE DOMESTIC WAR ON TERROR (2015).
\25\ BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, Countering Violent Extremism:
Myths and Fact, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/
analysis/102915%20Final%20CVE%20- Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
\26\ Murtaza Hussein and Jenna McLaughlin, FBI's ``Shared
Responsibility Committees'' to Identify ``Radicalized'' Muslims Raise
Alarms, THE INTERCEPT (April 9, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, numerous polls show a rise in anti-Muslim
bias that is manifesting into tangible hate crimes, mosque
vandalizations, employment discrimination, and bullying of Muslim kids
in schools.\27\ A 2015 poll in North Carolina, for example, reported
72% of respondents said that a Muslim should not be allowed to be
president of the United States and 40% said that Islam should be
illegal.\28\ A 2015 study by LifeWay Research found that 27% of
Americans believe ISIS represents what the Islamic religion really is--
along with 45% of 1,000 ``senior Protestant pastors.''\29\ Another
survey by the Economist/YouGov poll, found that 52% of Americans think
Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ E.g., Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the
West, Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-
understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx (last visited Sept. 2,
2016) (``In the U.S., about one-half of nationally representative
samples of Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews agree
that in general, most Americans are prejudiced toward Muslim Americans.
Specifically, 66% of Jewish Americans and 60% of Muslim Americans say
that Americans in general are prejudiced toward Muslim Americans.'');
Jonathan Easily, SC exit poll: 75 percent agree with Trump's Muslim
ban, Hill (February 20, 2016, 6:17 PM), http://thehill.com/blogs/
ballot-box/presidential-races/270156-sc-exit-poll-75-percent-agree-
with-trumps-muslim-ban. Rebecca Shabad, CBS News projects Donald Trump
win in South Carolina primary, CBS (Feb. 20, 2016, 5:20 PM), http://
www.cbsnews.com/news/results-from-south-carolinas-gop-primary-to-soon-
trickle-in/ (``Three-fourths of Republicans participating in Saturday's
South Carolina GOP primary say they support presidential hopeful Donald
Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., according
to an exit poll.''); Tom Benning, Most Texas voters support Donald
Trump's border wall and Muslim ban, poll says, Dall. Morning News (June
28, 2016, 11:53 AM), http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/
20160628-most-texas-voters-support-donald-trumps-border-wall-and-
muslim-ban-poll-says.ece (last updated June 28, 2016, 4:18 PM)
(``Nearly 52 percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat
support a wall along the Mexican border, compared with about 40 percent
who oppose it. The numbers were similar in response to the idea of
banning noncitizen Muslims from entering the U.S.''); Jesse Hellmann,
Poll: Americans split on Trump's proposed Muslim ban, Hill (June 16,
2016, 5:00 PM), http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/
283789-poll-americans-split-on-trumps-muslim-ban-proposal (``The NBC
News/SurveyMonkey poll shows 50 percent of those surveyed support
Trump's proposed Muslim immigration ban, while 46 percent are
opposed.''); Kristina Wong, Poll: Half of American voters back Trump's
Muslim ban, Hill (Mar. 29, 2016, 5:30 AM), http://thehill.com/policy/
defense/274521-poll-half-of-american-voters-back-trumps-muslim-ban (``A
`virtual majority' of American voters--49 percent--also agrees with
Cruz's call for additional law enforcement patrols of Muslim
neighborhoods in the U.S., the poll showed.'');[sic.]
\28\ September 24-27, 2015 Survey of 576 Republican primary voters,
Pub. Policy Polling (Sept. 29, 2015), http://
www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_92915.pdf.
\29\ One in Three Americans Worry About Sharia Law Being Applied in
America, LifeWay (Feb. 11, 2015), http://lifewayresearch.com/2015/02/
11/1-in-3-americans-worry-about-sharia-law-being-applied-in-america/.
\30\ Kathy Frankovic, Muslim Americans widely seen as victims of
discrimination, YouGov (Feb. 20, 2015), https://today.yougov.com/news/
2015/02/20/muslim-americans-widely-seen-victims-discriminatio/. That
same poll also found that three-fourths of Americans--73%--think
American Muslims face a great deal or a fair amount of discrimination.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such pervasive prejudice has produced tangible civil rights
violations against innocent Muslims across the country.\31\ A recent
report by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California
State University in San Bernadino found that anti-Muslim hate crimes
increased 78% in 2015 at 196 as compared to 110 hate crimes in
2014.\32\ Anti-Arab hate crimes rose by 219% from 21 in 2014 to 67 in
2015. Similarly, the civil rights organizations Muslim Advocates,
reported that since the November 2015 Paris attacks, at least 100 hate
crimes against Muslims in American have been reported.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Eric Lichtblau, Hate Crimes Against American Muslims Most
Since Post-9/11 Era, N.Y. Times (Sept. 17, 2016), http://
www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/us/politics/hate-crimes-american-muslims-
rise.html.
\32\ Ctr. for the Study of Hate & Extremism, Cal. State Univ.,
Special Status Report: Hate Crime in the United States 6 (2016),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3110202-SPECIAL-STATUS-REPORT-
v5-9-16-16.html.
\33\ Recent Incidents of Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes, MUSLIM ADVOCATES
(2016), https://www.muslimadvocates.org/map-anti-muslim-hate-crimes/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, these stark numbers likely do not reflect the entirety of
anti-Muslim discrimination. The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of
Statistics reported that only 44% of hate crimes are reported to the
police, and in 2013, the Bureau found that nearly two-thirds of all
hate crimes are unreported.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Nearly Two-Thirds of Hate Crimes Went Unreported to Police in
Recent Years, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE (Mar. 21, 2013), http://ojp.gov/
newsroom/pressreleases/2013/ojppr032113.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of hate crimes against Muslims and those perceived to be
Muslim that occurred in 2015-2016 include:
Sept. 10, 2016: Two Muslim women pushing their children in
strollers were attacked in Brooklyn by an assailant who spewed
anti-Muslim slurs.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Lauren del Valle, 2 Muslim women, babies attacked in alleged
hate crime in New York, CNN (Sept. 10, 2016, 12:49 AM), http://
www.cnn.com/2016/09/10/us/brooklyn-muslim-women-attacked/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 12, 2016: A man set fire to the Islamic Center of Fort
Pierce, Florida.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Lindsey Bever, Arrest made in arson at Orlando gunman's
mosque, authorities say, Wash. Post (Sept. 14, 2016), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/12/arson-
suspected-in-fire-at-florida-mosque-attended-by-pulse-shooter-omar-
mateen/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1, 2016: A Muslim man was assaulted and beaten after
leaving a mosque. He suffered at least 5 broken bones, a
concussion, and fractured ribs.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Laurel Raymond, Assault of Muslim Man in NYC Comes Amid Rising
Islamophobia Nationwide, THINKPROGRESS (June 6, 2016), http://
thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/06/3785049/muslim-man-attackedqueens/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 21, 2016: A delivery driver was brutally beaten by a
passenger who called him a ``Muslim a-hole.'' He was punched
multiple times before trying to escape the vehicle, and then
later pulled to the ground and was punched and stomped on.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Rocco Parascandola, Bronx Livery Driver Repeatedly Punched In
the Face By Passenger Who Called Him `Muslim Driver A--hole,' N.Y.
DAILY NEWS (May 25, 2016), http://www.nydailynews.com/newyork/bronx-
livery-driver-punched-called-muslim-driver-a-hole-article-1.2648669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar. 3, 2016: A Sikh temple was vandalized by a man who said
he thought it was a mosque and affiliated with terrorists.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Ajay Ghosh, Hate Crime Charged Against Pittman for Spokane
Gurdwara Vandalism, UNIVERSAL NEWS NETWORK, (Mar. 15, 2016), http://
theunn.com/2016/03/hate-crime-charged-against-pittman-for-spokane-
gurdwara-vandalism/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 21, 2016: A Muslim woman wearing a headscarf had hot
liquid poured on her by another woman shouting ``Muslim piece
of trash.''\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Steve Birr, Police Release Video of Assault on Muslim Woman
Outside DC Starbucks, THE DAILY CALLER (May 3, 2016), http://
dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/police-release-video-of-assault-on-
muslimwoman-outside-dc-starbucks/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb. 21, 2016: While a Muslim family was shopping for a
home, a man in the neighborhood pointed a gun at them saying
they ``should all die'' because they are Muslim.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Kevin Killeen, Affton Man Charged With Anti-Muslim Hate Crime,
CBS ST. LOUIS (Feb. 29, 2016), http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/02/29/
muslims-wait-for-bob-mcculloch-to-file-charges/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 2016: An elderly Sikh man was stabbed to death while
working at a convenience store.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Charles Lam, Sikh Man Stabbed to Death in Robbery of Central
California Convenience Store, NBC NEWS (Jan. 5, 2016, http://
www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/sikh-man-stabbed-death-robbery-
central-california-convenience-store-n490786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 11, 2015: In two separate incidents, one American
Muslim female was shot as she was leaving an Islamic center.
Another woman was nearly run off the road by someone throwing
rocks at her car as she left the mosque.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Travis Gettys, Muslim Woman Shot At and Another Nearly Run Off
the Road in Tampa After Leaving Mosques, RAW STORY (Dec. 11, 2015),
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/muslim-woman-shot-at-and-another-
nearly-run-off-the-road-in-tampa-after-leaving-mosques/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 26, 2015: A taxi driver--a 38-year-old Moroccan
immigrant--was shot and injured by one of his passengers after
being asked about his background.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Dan Majors, Muslim Taxi Driver Shot on Thanksgiving in
Hazelwood Calls Attack a Hate Crime, PITT. POST GAZETTE (Nov. 29,
2015), http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/11/29/Muslim-taxi-
drivershot-on-Thanksgiving-in-Pittsburgh-calls-attack-a-hate-crime/
stories/201511290154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the most troubling forms of anti-Muslim discrimination is the
bullying taking place in our schools. In 2010, a study in Northern
Virginia found that 80% of Muslim youth were subjected to taunts and
harassment at school. In 2014, a survey of Muslim children in third
through twelfth grade in Maryland found that nearly one-third ``said
they had experienced insults or abuse at least once because of their
faith.''\45\ That same year, a State-wide survey of more than 600
Muslim American students ages 11-18 in California found that 55% of
respondents reported being been bullied or discriminated against, twice
the number of students Nationally who reported being bullied.
Additionally, 29% of Muslim female students who wear a headscarf
experienced offensive touching or pulling off their hijab.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Donna St. George, During a school year of terrorist attacks,
Muslim students report bullying, Wash. Post (June 14, 2016), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/during-a-school-year-of-
terrorist-attacks-muslim-students-report-bullying/2016/06/14/1b066a44-
3220-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html.
\46\ Tatiana Sanchez, Muslim students report bullying at twice the
rate of non-Muslim peers, survey shows, L.A. Times (Oct. 31, 2015, 4:00
AM), http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-1031-bullying-
20151031-story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These findings are consistent with a 2016 report published by
Georgetown University finding 180 reported incidents of anti-Muslim
violence between March 2015 and March 2016. Among the incidents
reported are 12 murders, 34 physical assaults, 56 acts of vandalism or
destruction of property, 9 arsons, and 8 shootings and bombings.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Engy Abdelkader, Bridge Initiative, Special Report, When
Islamophobia Turns Violent: The 206 U.S. Presidential Elections 1-2
(2016), http://bridge.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/When-
Islamophobia-Turns-Violent.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the troubling rise in anti-Muslim discrimination and hate
crimes, Muslims believe their public safety concerns are not adequately
addressed at law-enforcement-led community outreach meetings. Instead,
law enforcement agents are primarily interested in knowing if Muslims
have any knowledge of potential terrorist plots.\48\ A comprehensive
empirical study published in 2016 by Duke's Center for Terrorism also
found that interviewees believed law enforcement agencies have broken
communities' trust in the past by violating civil liberties of Muslims
who worked with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ David Schanzer, Charles Kursman, Jessica Toliver & Elizabeth
Miller, The Challenge and Promise of Using Community Policing
Strategies to Prevent Violent Extremism: A Call for Community
Partnerships with Law Enforcement to Enhance Public Safety, Triangle
Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, Sanford School of Public
Policy, Duke University (2016), https://sanford.duke.edu/sites/
sanford.duke.edu/files/documents/2015-full-report-FINAL1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These broken promises have produced a deep distrust that in turn
has stifled coordination between civil society and law enforcement. For
example, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request uncovered documents showing that the FBI
was keeping records of conversations and activities within mosques and
other Muslim organizations from 2004 through 2008 and information
provided by Federal employees engaged in the outreach programs.\49\
This discovery contradicted multiple statements by law enforcement
assuring concerned citizens that intelligence was not being collected
at community outreach meetings.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Mike German, Is the FBI's Community Outreach Program a Trojan
Horse?, ACLU (Feb. 15, 2013, 3:33 PM), https://www.aclu.org/blog/fbis-
community-outreach-program-trojan-horse; Michael Price, Brennan Ctr.
for Justice, Community Outreach or Intelligence Gathering? A Closer
Look at ``Countering Violent Extremism'' Programs, https://
www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/
Community_Outreach_or_Intelligence_Gathering.pdf (last visited Sept.
20, 2016).
\50\ E.g., H.G. Reza, FBI Tries to Reassure Muslims in Irvine,
(June 7, 2006), http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/07/local/me-
muslim7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, an FBI initiative exploited community outreach to collect
information on Muslim communities and build a ``baseline profile of
Somali individuals that are vulnerable to being radicalized.''\51\ And
in 2012, another ACLU FOIA request uncovered FBI and NYPD systemic
surveillance of Middle Eastern and Muslim communities in Michigan, San
Francisco, and New York City.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Cora Currier & Murtaza Hussain, Letter Details FBI Plan for
Secretive Anti-Radicalization Committees, Intercept (Apr. 28, 2016,
12:02 PM), https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/letter-details-fbi-plan-
for-secretive-anti-radicalization-committees/.
\52\ See Eye on the FBI, AM. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, https://
www.aclu.org/national-security/eye-fbi-exposing-misconduct-and-abuse-
authority (last visited Sept. 20, 2016); ACLU Eye on the FBI: The FBI
is Engaged in Unconstitutional Racial Profiling and Racial ``Mapping'',
Am. Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/aclu-eye-fbi-fbi-
engaged-unconstitutional-racial-profiling-and-racial-mapping (last
visited Sept. 20, 2016); ACLU Eye on the FBI Alert--Mosque Outreach for
Intelligence Gathering, Am. Civil Liberties Union, https://
www.aclu.org/other/aclu-eye-fbi-alert-mosque-outreach-intelligence-
gathering?redirect=aclu-eye-fbi-alert-mosque-outreach-intelligence-
gathering (last visited Sept. 20, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Muslim community leaders who engaged with law
enforcement later discovered they were targets of investigations and
surveillance. For example, the emails of Faisal Gill were subject to
surveillance from 2006 to 2008 despite his service in the U.S. Navy and
as a senior policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
under George W. Bush.\53\ Such cases are further evidence that CVE
programs are a ruse for counterterrorism practices that impose
collective suspicion of millions of Muslims in America for the criminal
acts of individuals with whom they have nothing in common.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ James Gordon Meek, Brian Ross, & Rhonda Schwartz, Feds Spied
on Prominent Muslim-Americans, Report Claims, ABC News (July 9, 2014),
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/feds-spied-prominent-muslim-americans-
report-claims/story?id=24370482; Faisal Gill, I was targeted because of
my faith, CNN (July 10, 2014, 4:48 PM), http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/
opinion/gill-unwarranted-surveillance-muslim/. Other Muslim leaders
subject to surveillance are Asim Ghafoor, a well-known lawyer; Hooshang
Amirahmadi, a professor at Rutgers University; and Agha Saeed, a
political science professor at California State University. Id.
\54\ Waleed S. Ahmed, Spying on American Muslim Leaders Betrays
Advocates of Civic Engagement, Muslim Matters (July 16, 2014), http://
muslimmatters.org/2014/07/16/spying-on-american-muslim-leaders-betrays-
advocates-of-civic-engagement/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, purported community engagement and CVE programs by law
enforcement agencies have proven to be a failure in their stated
objectives. They have alienated and stigmatized Muslim communities and
legitimized anti-Muslim prejudice infecting our society. Consequently,
racialized and rights violating government practices are then exploited
by terrorists to corroborate their apocalyptic recruitment narrative
that America wants to destroy Islam.
iii. cve programs are unnecessary to prevent domestic terrorism
Not only are CVE programs counterproductive, they are unnecessary.
Like their fellow Americans, Muslim communities report suspicious
criminal activity about which they have knowledge without the need for
a multi-million dollar Government program.\55\ According to Peter
Bergen at the New America Foundation, nearly 20% of terrorism plots
have been prevented due to initial tips from Muslim communities and
family members.\56\ Studies by the Duke Triangle Center on Terrorism
and Homeland Security also found that American Muslim communities
provided a large source of information about terrorist plots since 9/
11.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Jessica Stern & J.M. Berger, ISIS: THE STATE OF TERROR 248-49
(2015) (noting that there is ``a near-total lack of evidence that [CVE
programs] actually prevent violent extremism in any meaningful way'').
\56\ Peter Bergen, David Sterman, Emily Schneider, & Bailey Cahall,
New America Foundation, Do NSA's Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop
Terrorists? 4-5 (2014), https://na-production.s3.amazonaws.com/
documents/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists; see also
Mohammed A. Malik, I reported Omar Mateen to the FBI. Trump is wrong
that Muslims don't do our part. Wash. Post (June 20, 2016), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/20/i-reported-omar-
mateen-to-the-fbi-trump-is-wrong-that-muslims-dont-do-our-part/
?utm_term=.0dfd4ce3b782 (authored by a Muslim American who reported the
Orlando shooter Omar Mateen to the FBI in 2014 after observing
suspicious activity).
\57\ Charles Kurzman, Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland
Security, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Muslim-
American Terrorism in 2013 4 (2014), https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/
files/2013/06/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_in_20131.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence, CVE programs, which overtly aim to recruit Muslims to report
potential terrorist plots,\58\ are a waste of Government resources.
Muslim Americans know less about potential plots than law enforcement
agencies with a sophisticated array of investigative tools at their
disposal.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See, e.g., Press Release, Office of the Press Secretary, The
White House, FACT SHEET: The White House Summit on Countering Violent
Extremism (Feb. 18, 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2015/02/18/fact-sheet-white-house-summit-countering-violent-extremism
(discussing community engagement with religious leaders and
communities).
\59\ See Pew Research Center, Mainstream and Moderate Attitudes
Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for
Extremism 1 (2011), http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/
Muslim%20American%20Report%2010-02-12%20fix.pdf (noting that only about
20% of Muslims even perceive much support for extremism among the
American Muslim community).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most cases charging Muslims of violating anti-terrorism laws are
driven by undercover agents and informants outside the knowledge of
community leaders or the individual's family.
A 2016 George Washington Report on Extremism reported that over
half (39) of the individuals they researched were arrested after an
investigation involving an informant or undercover law enforcement
officer.\60\ Out of the 500 anti-terrorism cases studies, nearly 250
involved an informant or undercover agent.\61\ For these reasons, some
Muslims worry that their engagement with law enforcement may lead to
their youth being targeted for sting operations.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Lorenzo Vidino & Seamus Hughes, George Washington Univ.,
Program on Extremism, ISIS in America: From Retweets to Raqqa ix
(2015), https:// cchs.gwu.edu/sites/cchs.gwu.edu/files/ downloads/
ISIS%20in%20America%20%20Full%20Report.pdf.
\61\ Id.
\62\ Glenn Greenwald, Why Does the FBI Have to Manufacture its Own
Plots if Terrorism and ISIS Are Such Grave Threats?, THE INTERCEPT
(Feb. 26, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-
plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A report by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School's Human
Rights Institute in 2014 found that ``in some cases, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation may have created terrorists out of law-abiding
individuals by conducting sting operations that facilitated or invented
the target's willingness to act.''\63\ According to the Center on
National Security at Fordham University School of Law, approximately
60% of cases against Americans in Da'esh-related charges have involved
informants as compared to 30% of all terrorism indictments since 9/
11.\64\ These results are unsurprising in light of the FBI's widespread
use of informants, estimated at 15,000 domestically as of 2008, which
is reportedly 10 times the number of informants active during the era
of J. Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Human Rights Institute, Illusion of Justice Human Rights
Abuses in US Terrorism Prosecutions 2 (2014), http://
web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-
institute/files/final_report__illusion_of_justice_0.pdf.
\64\ Nicole Hong, In U.S. ISIS Cases, Informants Play a Big Role,
Wall St. J. (Apr. 21, 2015, 7:08 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-u-
s-isis-cases-informants-play-a-big-role-1429636206.
\65\ Cora Currier & Murtaza Hussain, Letter Details FBI Plan for
Secretive Anti-Radicalization Committees, The Intercept (Apr. 28,
2016), https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/letter-details-fbi-plan-for-
secretive-anti-radicalization-committees/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases where a Muslim (often a young male) is targeted by
bona fide Da'esh recruiters, the process occurs on-line, in secret, and
without the knowledge of the community leaders and family members.\66\
A New America Foundation report found that of the 62 cases examined,
there was no evidence of physical recruitment by a militant operative,
cleric, returning foreign fighter, or radicalization in prison.\67\
Moreover, studies of terrorism suspects show Da'esh recruits' knowledge
of Islam is negligible. A 2008 study of hundreds of individuals
involved in terrorism and terrorism financeity by the British
intelligence agency MI-5 found that most of them were ``religious
novices,'' and that a ``well-established religious identity actually
protects against violent radicalization.''\68\ A recent leak of Da'esh
documents showed that 70 percent of recruits had a remedial
understanding of Islam, and often were alienated from mainstream Muslim
communities.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See David Talbot, Fighting ISIS Online, MIT Tech. Rev. (Sept.
30, 2015), https://www.technologyreview.com/s/541801/fighting-isis-
online/; Rukmini Callimachiisis, ISIS and the Lonely Young American,
N.Y. Times (June 27, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/world/
americas/isis-online-recruiting-american.html?_r=0. See also ISIS
Online: Countering Terrorist Radicalization & Recruitment on the
Internet & Social Media: Hearing Before the Permanent Subcomm. on
Investigations, 114th Cong. 10 (2015) (testimony by Peter Bergen),
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/bergen-testimony_psi-2016-07-05
(``Around nine out of 10 American militants are active in online
jihadist circles.'').
\67\ ISIS Online: Countering Terrorist Radicalization & Recruitment
on the Internet & Social Media: Hearing Before the Permanent Subcomm.
on Investigations, 114th Cong. 4 (2016) (testimony by Peter Bergen),
file:///C:/Users/Staff/Downloads/Bergen%20Testimony_- PSI%202016-07-
06.pdf.
\68\ Alan Travis, MI5 Report Challenges Views on Terrorism in
Britain, THE GUARDIAN (Aug. 20, 2008), https://www.theguardian.com/uk/
2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1.
\69\ Leaked ISIS Docs Show 70% of Recruits Don't Even Know What
Islam Is, OffGuardian (Aug. 22, 2016), https://off-guardian.org/2016/
08/22/leaked-isis-docs-show-70-of-recruits-dont-even-know-what-islam-
is/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, Director of Community Partnerships at DHS George Selim's
statement in a Reuters article that ``[g]iven the current scope of the
threat, we believe family members, friends, coaches, teachers are best
placed to potentially prevent and intervene in the process of
radicalization'' is unsupported by evidence.\70\ Unless the Government
wants Muslims to actively spy on each other's on-line activities in
contravention of fundamental American values, CVE programs will only
waste Government resources and alienate otherwise well-integrated
American communities.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Yasmeen Abutaleb & Kristina Cooke, A teen's turn to radicalism
and the U.S. safety net that failed to stop it, Reuters (June 6, 2016,
2:20 PM), http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-
extremists-teen/.
\71\ Michael Hirsh, Inside the FBI's Secret Muslim Network,
Politico Magazine (March 24, 2016), http://www.politico.com/magazine/
story/2016/03/fbi-muslim-outreach-terrorism-213765 (noting Harvard
terrorism expert Jessica Stern conclusion that the relative prosperity
and assimilation of American Muslims starkly contrasts with Muslims in
Europe where the latter experience disparities in employment and wages
as well as overpolicing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, irrational prejudices animate the false assumption that
each Muslim has knowledge of and is responsible for all other Muslims'
actions. Like all other Americans, Muslims deserve to be presumed
innocent and treated as individuals, not collectively guilty based on
the criminal acts of a few individuals who misappropriate religious
doctrine to engage in politically-motivated violence.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See The Clarion Project, Special Report: The Islamic State 6
(2015), http://www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/islamic-
state-isis-isil-factsheet-1.pdf (explaining that Da'esh is a political
organization that uses religion to justify its goals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. cve programs are a waste government resources
Senior Government officials have gone on the record stating that
the threat of Americans joining Da'esh is diminishing. According to
Francis Taylor, Under Secretary of the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis for DHS, in 2015 there was no specific, credible, imminent
threat to the homeland from Da'esh.\73\ In October 2015, FBI Director
James Comey testified before Congress that fewer Americans are
attempting to travel to Syria to join Da'esh.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See The Impact of ISIS on the Homeland and Refugee
Resettlement: Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Comm. on Homeland Sec. &
Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. 10 (2015) (testimony of Peter
Bergen), http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/lessons-from-the-paris-
terrorist-attacks-ramifications-for-the-homeland-and-refugee-
resettlement.
\74\ Del Quentin Wilber, FBI says fewer Americans now try to join
Islamic State, L.A. Times (May 11, 2016, 2:49 PM), http://
www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-comey-fbi-20160511-snap-story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the data does not corroborate a sufficient security
threat to warrant a Nation-wide CVE program. The FBI estimates that
approximately 200 Muslim Americans (out of 3 to 6 million)\75\ have
attempted to join Da'esh in Syria and Iraq.\76\ In 2015, a George
Washington University report by the Project on Extremism estimated the
total number of Americans who have traveled to Syria and Iraq since
2011 was 250 out of 30,000 foreign fighters worldwide and over 5,000
from Europe.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Besheer Mohamed, A new estimate of the U.S. Muslim population,
Pew Research Ctr. (Jan. 6, 2016), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/
2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/ (stating that
Pew Research Center estimates that 3.3 million Muslims lived in the
United States in 2015).
\76\ Julian Hattem, FBI: More than 200 Americans have tried to
fight for ISIS, The Hill, (July 8, 2015), http://thehill.com/policy/
national-security/247256-more-than-200-americans-tried-to-fight-for-
isis-fbi-says; How many Americans have joined ISIS, CBS News (August
22, 2014), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-americans-have-joined-
isis/ (reporting that as of August 2014, fewer than 12 Americans have
been confirmed to have joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq).
\77\ Lorenzo Vidino & Seamus Hughes, George Washington Univ.,
Program on Extremism, ISIS in America: From Retweets to Raqqa ix
(2015), https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/cchs.gwu.edu/files/downloads/
ISIS%20in%20America%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States, there has only been one reported case of a
fighter returning and allegedly plotting an attack.\78\ Speaking to the
Council on Foreign Relations in March 2015, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper stated that approximately 40 individuals
have returned from Syria, and: ``We have since found they went for
humanitarian purposes or some other reason that don't relate to
plotting.''\79\ Similarly, the New America Foundation found that no
American fighter who fought in the conflict in Somalia returned to plot
an attack in the United States. Most either died there or were taken
into custody upon their return to the United States.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ ISIS Online: Countering Terrorist Radicalization & Recruitment
on the Internet & Social Media: Hearing Before the Permanent Subcomm.
on Investigations, 114th Cong. 14 (2016) (testimony by Peter Bergen),
file:///C:/Users/Staff/Downloads/Testimony-Bergen-2015-11-19-
REVISED.pdf.
\79\ Karl Vick, New Study Says U.S. Threat from Returning Jihadis
Is Low, Time (Mar. 25, 2016), http://time.com/4272307/isis-foreign-
jihadis-threat/; Julian Hattem, Spy chief: No threat from Americans who
aided militants in Syria, The Hill (Mar. 2, 2015 1:52 PM), http://
thehill.com/policy/defense/234322-spy-chief-no-threat-from-returning-
americans-who-fought-in-syria.
\80\ The Impact of ISIS on the Homeland and Refugee Resettlement:
Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental
Affairs, 114th Cong. 13 (2015) (testimony of Peter Bergen), http://
www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/lessons-from-the-paris-terrorist-attacks-
ramifications-for-the-homeland-and-refugee-resettlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be sure, domestic terrorism is a security issue that must be
taken seriously. And our law enforcement agencies have a myriad of
legal and investigative tools at their disposal to counter terrorism
based on individualized suspicious activity indicative of criminal
wrongdoing. Casting a wide net of suspicion, surveillance, and
investigation on Muslim communities writ large is a waste of resources
that distracts agents from real security threats--not to mention a
violation of Constitutional and civil rights.
Furthermore, CVE programs are likely to be as wasteful as fusion
centers. In 2012, a bi-partisan investigation by the U.S. Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that ``State and local
intelligence fusion centers had not yielded significant useful
information to support Federal counterterrorism intelligence
efforts.''\81\ Specifically, the Permanent Committee found that
intelligence produced by fusion centers was of ``uneven quality--
oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens' civil
liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-
published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to
terrorism.''\82\ Ultimately, there was no evidence that fusion centers
assisted in disrupting or preventing terrorism. The same Government
waste and civil liberties violations are likely to occur with CVE
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, Federal Support for and
Involvement in State and Local Fusion Centers, Majority and Minority
Staff Report, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/
investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-
reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers.
\82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our resources and policies, therefore, should be guided by the
degree of the threat based on credible data. Fatalities from terrorism
were 69 since 9/11,\83\ compared with 220,000 deaths from murders over
the same period.\84\ In 2015 alone, 475 people were killed in mass
shootings.\85\ According to the Combating Terrorism Center at West
Point, the risk of death at the hands of terrorists in the United
States approaches lottery-winning odds.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Charles Kurzman & David Schanzer, Triangle Center on Terrorism
and Homeland Security, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke
University, Law Enforcement Assessment of Violent Extremism Threat 7-9
(2015), https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_
Schanzer_Law_Enforcement_Assessment_of_the_Violent_ Extremist_ Threat_
final.pdf.
\84\ Linda Qiu, Fact-checking a comparison of gun deaths and
terrorism deaths, Politifact (Oct. 5, 2015, 11:55 AM), http://
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/
fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/.
\85\ Mass Shootings--2015, Gun Violence Archive (2015), http://
www.pbsgunviolencear- chive.org/newshour/rundown/2015-the-year-of-
reports/mass-shootings/2015?page=13.
\86\ Brian Michael Jenkins, Fifteen Years On, Where Are We In the
``War on Terror''?, CTC SENTINEL, September 2016, at 7. Text from:
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CTC-
SENTINEL_Vol9Iss92.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet we are not seeing Government CVE programs targeting single
white males in their thirties and forties who are the most common
demographic committing mass murder. Nor are we seeing CVE programs for
Christians due to right-wing groups' misappropriation of Christian
doctrine in furtherance of their violent political ends.\87\ Government
hearings are not being held to debate whether violence perpetrated by
the Klu Klux Klan, the Army of God, or the Lord's Resistance Army
should be called ``radical Christian terrorism.''\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ R. Kleinfield, Russ Buettner, David W. Chen, & Nikita Stewart,
Mass Murders Fit Profile, as Do Many Others Who Don't Kill, N.Y. Times
(Oct. 3, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/mass-murderers-
fit-profile-as-do-many-others-who-dont-kill.html?_r=0 (discussing the
difficulty with the profile of a mass shooter that fits a majority
class).
\88\ Racial Equality, White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
(2011), http://www.wckkkk.org/eql.html; Army of God, http://
www.armyofgod.com/; Harry J. Bentham, ISIS isn't Islamic as the Lord's
Resistance Army isn't Christian, BELIEF NET, http://www.beliefnet.com/
columnists/lordre/2014/11/isis-islam-lords-resistance-army-
christianity-extremism.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Poverty Law Center found at least 100 plots,
conspiracies and racist rampages since 1995 aimed at waging violence
against the United States Government. The National Consortium for the
Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism found that between 1990
and 2014, far-right domestic extremists perpetrated four times as many
ideologically-based homicidal incidents than extremists associated with
al-Qaeda and associated groups.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Parkin, William S., Steven M. Chermak, Joshua D. Freilich, &
Jeff Gruenewald, Office of University Programs, Science and Technology
Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Twenty-Five Years of
Ideological Homicide Victimization in the United States of America
(2016), https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/
START_CSTAB_ECDB_25YearsofIdeological-
HomicideVictimizationUS_March2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2000 to 2015, the number of hate groups has increased by 56%,
which include a large number of anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, anti-Muslim,
and anti-Government ``Patriot'' groups. And from 2014 to 2015 the
number of radical right-wing groups increased by 14 percent.\90\ For
example, Klu Klux Klan chapters increased from 72 in 2014 to 190 in
2015. Self-described ``Patriot'' groups with an anti-Government agenda
grew from 874 in 2014 to 998 in 2015. Stormfront, a White Nationalist
on-line hate forum, had more than 300,000 registered members in 2015
with an average annual increase of 25,000 new users.\91\ White
supremacist on-line forums also radicalized Dylaan Roof, the alleged
shooter in the massacre of 9 African Americans at Charleston's Emanuel
African Methodist Episcopal Church on June 17, 2015.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Mark Potok, The Year in Hate and Extremism, S. Poverty L. Ctr.
(Feb. 17, 2016), https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-
report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism.
\91\ Id.
\92\ Morris Dees & J. Richard Cohen, White Supremacists Without
Borders, N.Y. Times (June 22, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/
opinion/white-supremacists-without-borders.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rise in right-wing violent extremisms has resulted in 337
attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254
fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the
United States Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center.\93\ One
chilling case in January 2011 involved a neo-Nazi who hid a bomb packed
with fishing weights coated with rat poison in a backpack in the route
of the Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane, Washington.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Arie Perliger, Combating Terrorism Center at West Point,
Challengers From the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-
Right (2012), https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/
ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf; Charles Kurzman & David Schanzer, The
Growing Right Wing Terror Threat, N.Y. Times (June 16, 2015), http://
www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html.
\94\ Arie Perliger, Combating Terrorism Center at West Point,
Challengers From the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-
Right (2012), https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/
ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2014, a violent extremist associated with the right-wing
Sovereign Citizens movement shot police officers with an assault rifle
during his attack on a courthouse in Fortyth County, Georgia.\95\ That
same year in Nevada, anti-Government militants associated with
Sovereign Citizens shot 2 police officers in a restaurant and placed
over their bodies a ``Don't Tread on Me'' flag, a swastika-stamped
manifesto, and note that read ``This is the start of the
revolution.''\96\ In early 2016, 150-armed white Christian ``militia''
members occupied a Federal building and took over several acres of
Federal land.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Forsyth deputy shot, suspect dead, courthouse evacuated,
ajc.com (June 6, 2014), http://www.ajc.com/news/news/police-activity-
around-forsyth-courthouse/ngFsZ/.
\96\ JJ MacNab, What Las Vegas Police Killings Show About Evolving
Sovereign Movement, Forbes (June 13, 2014), http://www.forbes.com/
sites/jjmacnab/2014/06/13/what-las-vegas-police-killings-show-about-
evolving-sovereign-movement/#2e27c38d57be.
\97\ Carissa Wolf, Peter Holley, & Wesley Lowery, Armed men, led by
Bundy brothers, take over federal building in rural Oregon, Wash. Post
(Jan. 3, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/
2016/01/03/armed-militia-bundy-brothers-take-over-federal-building-in-
rural-oregon/?utm_term=.72d2b63a4e19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comparison, an average of 9 Muslims per year--out of 3 to 6
million--have been involved in an annual average of 6 terrorism-related
plots against targets in the United States. While most were disrupted,
the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities between
2001 and 2014, excluding the 9/11 terrorist attacks.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Charles Kurzman & David Schanzer, The Growing Right-Wing
Terror Threat, N.Y. Times (June 16, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_- r=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2015 Duke University research study found that over 74% of 382
local and State agencies rated anti-Government extremism as one of the
top 3 terrorist threats in their jurisdiction.\99\ This is compared to
39% rating al-Qaeda or like-minded terrorists as a top threat.\100\
When asked to rank 1 to 5 the terrorist threat in their jurisdiction,
149 departments out of 170 ranked ``other'' forms of terrorism as a
higher threat than al-Qaeda and associated terrorism. Similarly, only 3
percent identified the threat of Muslim violent extremists as severe,
as compared to 7 percent for anti-Government and other forms of violent
extremists.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Charles Kurzman & David Schanzer, Triangle Center on Terrorism
and Homeland Security, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke
University, Law Enforcement Assessment of Violent Extremism Threat 4
(2015), https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_ Schanzer_
Law_ Enforcement_Assessment_ of_ the_ Violent_ Extremist_ Threat_
final.pdf.
\100\ Id.
\101\ Charles Kurzman & David Schanzer, The Growing Right-Wing
Terror Threat, N.Y. Times (June 16, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/
06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_- r=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Duke University researchers asked law enforcement agencies why
they did not have a CVE program tailored for right-wing extremist
groups, agents noted it would be a waste of time because the right-wing
extremists live in the shadows and do not communicate their criminal
activity to white communities.\102\ The same reality applies to
terrorism plotters who claim to be Muslims. They do not tell Muslim
community leaders or family members about their criminal plans. Nor do
they become recruited by international terrorists in open forums where
interventions by civilians are a possibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ David Schanzer, et al., Triangle Center on Terrorism and
Homeland Security, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University,
The Challenge and Promise of Using Community Policing Strategies to
Prevent Violent Extremism 21-22 (2016), https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/
files/2013/06/2015-full-report-FINAL1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, Muslims interviewed in the Duke University study were asked
about the efficacy of CVE programs, respondents expressed frustration
that the Government and fellow Americans expected them to have
knowledge of every fringe element that claims to share their faith
whereas other faith traditions are not imposed with the same
burden.\103\ Not only are such expectations impractical, they are un-
American. We are a country founded on rule of law where each individual
is responsible for her individual acts, not for the acts of others who
happen to share the same race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or other
characteristics. CVE programs contravene this fundamental American
principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be sure, we should not be creating CVE programs based on
religious identities--whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or otherwise.
But the unabashed focus on Muslims in Government efforts to counter
politically-motivated violence in America demonstrates the Government's
disparate treatment of faith communities.
v. funds for community development and resilience should be managed by
social service agencies without law enforcement control
Muslims communities are among the most diverse in America.
Comprised of races and ethnic backgrounds, the diversity of Muslim
American communities is a testament to America's rich cultural
heritage. Nearly 70% of Muslims are foreign-born and 20% are African
American.\104\ For decades, Muslim engineers, doctors, lawyers,
professors, and other professionals have contributed their skills and
strong work ethic toward America's economic prosperity. Similarly,
Muslims are entrepreneurs who operate businesses that create jobs and
grow our economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ According the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, 65% of
Muslims are foreign born, 35% are U.S. born, and approximately 20% all
Muslims are African Americans. Section 1: A Demographic Portrait of
Muslim Americans, Pew Research Ctr. (Aug. 30, 2011), http://www.people-
press.org/2011/08/30/section-1-a-demographic-portrait-of-muslim-
americans/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, 14% of Muslims earn a household income over $100,000
compared to 16% of the general population and 13% of Muslim households
earn $50,000 to $74,999 compared to 15% of the general population.
Accordingly, a Pew Research Center study in 2011 found that Muslims are
mostly mainstream and well-integrated into American society.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, like many other American communities, Muslim American
communities include a significant number of low-income families. The
Pew Research Forum found that in 2011 45% of Muslim households earned
less than $30,000 compared to 36% of the general public and only 33% of
Muslims were homeowners compared to 58% of the general public.\106\
With the poverty line at approximately $28,000 for a family of 5 and
$32,000 for a family of 6,\107\ a third of Muslims in America are on
the verge of poverty. Moreover, 17% of Muslims were unemployed compared
to 12 percent of the general public and 29 percent were under-employed
compared to 20 percent of the general public.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support
for Extremism, Pew Research Ctr. (Aug. 30, 2011), http://www.people-
press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-
or-support-for-extremism/.
\107\ Poverty Guidelines, U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services (Jan. 25, 2016), https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines.
\108\ Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support
for Extremism, Pew Research Ctr. (Aug. 30, 2011), http://www.people-
press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-
or-support-for-extremism/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Khaled Beydoun's research on the experiences of low-
income Muslims in America at a time when Islamophobia has reached
unprecedented levels demonstrates the need for social services in many
Muslim American communities.\109\ Indeed, as a stand-alone faith-
group--Muslims are comparatively poorer than the broader American
polity.\110\ In some Muslim communities, the poverty rate is alarmingly
high. For example, 82% of the estimated 80,000 Somali Americans living
in Minnesota are near or below the poverty line. In Brooklyn, nearly
54% of Bangladeshi Americans are low-income or below the poverty line
and many Yemeni American families who live in high cost cities such as
New York, Detroit, and the Bay Area are low-income.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See Khaled A. Beydoun, Between Indigence, Islamophobia, and
Erasure: Poor and Muslim in ``War on Terror'' America, CALIFORNIA LAW
REVIEW (forthcoming 2016), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2685840.
\110\ Id.
\111\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consequent social and economic challenges faced by some Muslims
in America--not inflated terrorism threats based on fear and
prejudice--should determine how we spend Government resources. For
example, some Muslim leaders such as Los Angeles-based cleric Jihad
Saafir, believe local gangs pose the most immediate threat to community
safety, not home-grown violent extremists.\112\ As such, Government
resources are more wisely spent on investing in education, employment,
health, and other social services that empower diverse Muslim
communities to thrive and prosper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Alejandro Beutel, Using Local Public-Private Partnerships to
Reduce Risk of Violent Extremism, BRINK NEWS (Aug. 6, 2015), http://
www.brinknews.com/using-local-public-private-partnerships-to-reduce-
risk-of-violent-extremism/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In doing so, funds currently allocated to CVE should be redirected
to social service agencies with the expertise and institutional mission
to assist new immigrant and low-income communities. Law enforcement
should only get involved if there is individualized suspicion of
predicate criminal acts in accordance with the U.S Constitution and
civil rights.
Indeed, the proposal to decouple law enforcement from community
development is consistent with Pentagon officials' determination that
civilian programs abroad led by the U.S Agency for International
Development were more effective in mitigating the circumstances that
may lead some vulnerable youth to being recruited by terrorist
groups.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ James Stavridis & John R. Allen, Expanding the U.S.
Military's Smart-Power Toolbox, Wall St. J. (June 9, 2016, 12:03 PM),
http://www.wsj.com/articles/expanding-the-u-s-militarys-smart-power-
toolbox-1465425489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government programs funded and controlled by State and Federal
social service agencies, such as the departments of education and
health and human services, will also facilitate community involvement
in setting the agenda based on the diverse communities' needs. This
will bolster community-Government partnerships. Communities can focus
on working with qualified social services experts in addressing
community development challenges rather than worry that their
involvement will be exploited by law enforcement to surveil their
communities, violate their civil liberties, and legitimize
discrimination by private actors.
vi. conclusion
We live in a world where opportunities and conflicts cross borders
with ease. New technologies and advances in international travel have
created unprecedented possibilites for citizens across the world to
interact and exchange ideas for the common good.
However, violent non-state actors with political agendas are
exploiting new technologies and seamless borders to manipulate
vulnerable individuals. They use myriad ideological doctrines to lend
credence to their perverse political motivations.
In confronting these violent actors, we cannot afford to adopt an
``us versus them'' approach. We must unite as Americans to ensure we
are all safe and secure from both state and nonstate violence. Doing so
entails staying true to our fundamental American values. The most
pertinent of which is our commitment to individual responsibility for
individual wrongdoing, regardless of one's religion, race, or creed.
Unfortunately, CVE programs undermine rather than promote these
values as well as American security. The securitization of Muslim
communities as potential terrorists legitimizes the pervasive anti-
Muslim prejudice and bigotry infecting our society today. Consequently,
private actors are emboldened to harass, assault, and even kill fellow
citizens who are or perceived to be Muslim. Meanwhile, CVE programs
ignore the rise of right-wing extremists--who often target Muslims in
hate crimes.\114\ All of which is exploited by Da'esh to validate its
twisted narrative that America is at war with Islam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Peter Romaniuk, Global Center on Cooperative Security, Does
CVE Work? Lessons Learned from the Global Effort to Counter Violent
Extremism, Global Center on Cooperative Security (September 2015),
http://www.globalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Does-CVE-
Work_2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the data does not support the need for a law
enforcement-led CVE program targeting Muslim communities. Long before
the White House CVE initiative in 2010, Muslims in America have
informed law enforcement when they have knowledge of criminal activity.
Indeed, Muslims have also actively stopped attempted terrorism by other
Muslims. For example, a Muslim vendor in New York City was the first to
spot smoke coming out of an SUV in the Times Square attempted bombing.
His immediate communication with law enforcement was instrumental in
preventing the loss of life.\115\ Thus, spending tens of millions of
dollars on CVE programs especially for Muslim communities is not only
stigmatizing, it is unnecessary and wasteful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Muslim Vendor Gets No Credit in Helping to Foil Times Square
Bomb Plot, Democracy Now! (May 6, 2010), http://www.democracynow.org/
2010/5/6/muslim_vendor_gets_no_cre- dit_in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent of flawed CVE programs and specious radicalization
theories, our Government resources are well-spent investing in new
immigrant and low-income communities who face unique social and
economic challenges. As a country that prides itself in offering the
opportunity for social mobility to citizens willing and able to work
hard, investing in community development is a worthy endeavor.
Funds that would otherwise be wasted on ill-fated CVE programs
instead should be given to social services agencies with the expertise
to support the diverse Muslim American communities in need of job
training, physical and mental health services, youth programs,
educational opportunities, and other services that build community
resilience. And rather than make such programs available only to a
particular religion or race, they should be available to communities
based on need.
Fifteen years after the tragic 9/11 attacks, most Muslims in
America want nothing more than to be actively and constructively
engaged in American society. They welcome working with their Government
and fellow citizens to ensure all Americans have equal opportunity to
thrive and be safe. But they are thwarted from doing so by racialized
Government programs that treat them as outsiders and fifth columns
rather than partners and equal citizens.
It is long overdue to rethinking our counterterrorism policies and
practices to make them less discriminatory and more compliant with our
Constitution to continue America's relative success in integrating
communities of all faiths, races, and immigrant status.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Ms. Aziz.
The Chair now recognized Ms. Qudosi for her testimony.
STATEMENT OF SHIREEN QUDOSI, SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR,
COUNTERJIHAD.COM
Ms. Qudosi. Thank you for the invitation to speak. I am
grateful for a critical opportunity to speak on this issue that
is very close to my heart at this critical point in our
Nation's history. I ask that my written testimony be submitted
into record.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Qudosi. I appreciate that all of you have taken time
today to come here and discuss radical Islam. But just as we
evolve from the war on terror to radical Islam, we must really
take the next evolutionary leap and realize that we are dealing
with a political ideology.
We are dealing with a political parasite that is feeding
off of a religion, and that religion is already complex by
being both peaceful and warmongering. Islamism is a political
philosophy with its own rich intellectual and religious
history. Muslim reformers today are a beacon of hope in a
challenging time. But we are not an anomaly.
Muslim reformers are a resurgence of free-thinkers that
have historically been silenced for political gain by other
Muslim groups. The first group were called the Hiwadij, a
fierce group of free-thinkers who opposed the caliphate system
in the early years after the prophet's death. Today you will
hear Muslim grievance professionals call the Hiwadij a band of
outlaws and link them with ISIS, the very thing that the
Hiwadij were against.
Next, we have the Mutazilites who failed to birth a
national and liberal peaceful Islam because they lacked
political support. Today we have the reformers.
Political support has and always will be necessary to
challenge the system of Islamism and the monolith it has become
in the last century. Today that system is protected by Muslims
who refuse to recognize the challenges we face and the hand
that Islamism plays.
Whether we are looking at jihadis or radicals, Islamists or
full progressives, which are leftists who refuse to recognize
the reality of the situation, these groups enjoy Western
liberty but have no interest in honoring or extending that
liberty once their goals are secured.
Here is an example. We already see how these groups use
shame tactics and exclusionary practices to silence minority
voices in Islam, voices like mine, all the while crying that
they themselves are a minority in America in need of special
protection. How does this espouse liberal values? The fact is,
millions of Muslim Americans will not suffer if they are
offended. The truth is, Islam is not a race. It is not in our
blood. It is an idea. It is just an idea.
Because of this, it is impossible to be Islamophobic,
racist, or a bigot if you question an idea. It is not hate
speech to speak the truth or to ask necessary questions. In the
fight against Islamism, one of the first steps we need to take
is to cut the reins on language and allow this country to have
a real shot at winning this by having free and open
conversations, just like we expect free and open elections.
In that vein, the first point of any litmus test today is
seeing which one of us is asking a question and which one of us
is saying a question doesn't need to be asked. If we want to
see more critical thinkers in Islam, if we want to make more
voices heard for human dignity, then we need political support
and we need a landscape that remembers the best of America,
bold and unapologetic truthfulness.
The political ideology of Islam is a means to break. At the
same time, we have to discuss Islamic theology as well if we
want to get to the heart of the problem as it impacts
radicalization and CVE efforts. I want to stress that both
Islamism and radical Islam need to be tackled. The former
creates a ripe breeding ground for the latter.
Ultimately what is going to be most effective in defeating
radical Islam is not just programs, but to deploy change
agents, like reformers, and help spark movements that break the
ideology from within. We need to be culturally and
philosophically combative and find, source, identify, and
create those allies.
The CVE program is like a math problem that asks you to
answer what 2 plus 2 equals and then asks you to use the
alphabet to form an answer. It is impossible. It doesn't work
that way. The fact is, no CVE program currently in play is as
powerful as Muslim change agents with a National, if not
global, platform. That is how you win this. Thank you for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Qudosi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shireen Qudosi
September 22, 2016
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen: My
name is Shireen Qudosi. I am a Muslim Reformer. I am a conservative and
a feminist. I am an immigrant of Pakistani and Afghan heritage. I have
traveled through Iran and Turkey, and was a refugee in Germany before I
was lucky enough to become an American citizen. The experiences which
shape my identity puts me in a unique position from which to view the
larger war against radical Islam. My testimony will largely elaborate
on the following points:
Muslim Reform acknowledges that Islam must change in order
to be compatible with life in our free society.
Islamism is neither a harmless alternative lifestyle nor a
collection of harmless beliefs; it is a political system with
definable ideas, an intellectual history and, alarmingly, a
relatively robust base of support within the United States.
A government and civil society emphasis on combatting
``Islamophobia'' actually prevents any hope at Muslim Reform,
because it protects Islam from criticism from non-Muslims and
Muslims alike. It must be stopped.
As a Muslim Reformer, I am committed to reform within Islam. As a
mainstream doctrinal system of law and belief, Islam is in desperate
need of change in order to make peace with the values we expect from
life in a 21st Century liberal democracy or free society.
Fifteen years ago, the need for change within Islam would have been
an unremarkable and obvious observation recognized by Republicans and
Democrats. One could hear the truth of this message both on Fox News
and on MSNBC, from Muslim and non-Muslim voices alike.
Today, however, even uttering this truth is uncomfortable and
politically incorrect, in elite media, think tanks, NGOs--and
especially within the capitals of Western nations. I believe this
unwillingness to speak the truth on the part of those who are
responsible for leading and keeping us secure is intimately tied to the
current strategic incoherence of what was once called the War on
Terror.
That strategic incoherence takes the form of what has, I believe,
been aptly described by former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy as
``Willful Blindness'' to the definable characteristics of the jihad
around us.\1\ The core of military strategy, Sun Tzu tells us, is know
your enemy and to know yourself. It is impossible to defeat what you do
not, first, understand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Andrew C. McCarthy, Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.
Encounter Books (2008) https://www.amazon.com/Willful-Blindness-Andrew-
C-Mccarthy/dp/1594032130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For instance, on December 2, 2015, the San Bernardino shootings
occurred.\2\ One of the shooters, an immigrant from Pakistan named
Tashfeen Malik, passed at least three security screenings to be
admitted, then helped murder 14 Americans.\3\ How could this happen?
Because the public servants trying to screen out ``violent extremists''
are barred by law to look for Islamists or evidence of political
commitment masquerading as religious belief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``San Bernardino shooting updates,'' LA Times. December 9,
2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-
shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html
\3\ ``US Visa U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife's Online
Zealotry,'' New York Times, December 12, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/
2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-process-tashfeen-maliks-
remarks-on-social-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to leaving us vulnerable to physical attack, ``Willful
Blindness'' has taken an important cognitive toll, as well. For
example, President Bush and members of his administration famously
tried to extend a hand of friendship to Muslims after 9/11, by saying,
``Islam is peace.''\4\ I am certain they believed it and said it in
good faith--as do many Muslims who also say the same today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ `` `Islam is Peace,' Says President: Remarks by the President
at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.'' https://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html Video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ZoroJdVnA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, with regards to Islam, however, the truth is more
complicated. The first 12 years of Mohammed's prophethood in Arabia
was, indeed, suffused with a message of peace. What followed the
Prophet's transition to political and military leader, though, was
predominantly the establishment and maintenance of a Muslim nation
through force and domination. Islamic scholars refer to these distinct
phases--delineated by verses in the Qur'an--as either belonging to the
Mecca or Medina periods, respectively. That legacy of violence and
domination continued in the years after the prophet's death through the
establishment of a Caliphate.
Reformers and others can contextualize this ugly history, recasting
and rechanneling its lessons for the Muslims of today. But by
proclaiming that, simply, ``Islam is peace,'' we are distorting the
story. Worse, we are ignoring great bulk of Islamic law dealing with
relations between the Muslim community and its non-Muslim neighbors
which emerged during the Medina period. You will find these verses in
the Qur'an, which many Muslims consider the uncreated word of God:
``Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the
Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for
which He had sent no authority.'' (Q 3:151)
``I will cast terror into the hearts of those who
disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off
every fingertip of them'' (Q 8:12)
These are among the verses that, underscored through scholarship
codified into Islamic law or Sharia, form the doctrine justifying and
encouraging every jihadi attack today.
A more correct way to put it would be, ``Islam is peace and war.''
Censoring the word ``war'' does nothing to alter what Islam is or
isn't. Those who do this try to press the truth into a narrative they,
understandably, are more comfortable facing. Refusing to acknowledge
the obvious, though, only undercuts people like me who are working at
real, doctrinal reform.
President Obama and members of his administration have taken the
mistaken mantra that ``Islam is peace'' several steps forward in the
same, misguided direction. Not only do they refuse to utter the words,
``Islamic terrorism,'' they argue that even speaking those words is
counterproductive and damaging to our efforts to combat it.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Why Won't Obama Say Radical Islam?'' NBC News, June 13, 2016.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/why-won-t-
obama-say-radical-islam-n591196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have so thoroughly disassociated cause and effect that they
view acts of violent terrorism (now called the meaningless euphemism,
``extremism'') as completely separate both from the world's Muslim
population and the doctrines of Islamic religious law.
Instead, the lens through which the President and others see this
conflict playing out, especially within the United States and its
Muslim population, is as a conflict between races and identities or
between majority and minority individuals and communities rather than
one between competing political systems. Perhaps this is to be expected
in the context of America's history on recent civil rights
battlegrounds; it is, in this case, incorrect.
The obsession with stamping out the public's ``Islamophobia'' in
the mold of previous anti-racism campaigns moves Islam from a religion
into a racial or biological context. Islam is a religion--that is, it
is merely set of concepts and beliefs. As such, ideas, concepts, and
beliefs do not have human rights; individuals do.
The most targeted and slandered voices today under ``Islamophobia''
are those who take aim at those ideas, not people. By calling criticism
of the tenants of Islam or its doctrines ``Islamophobic'' or
``hateful'' speech, we are placing a political system beyond the reach
of criticism--and ultimately, any analysis at all, in fear of causing
offense.
This isn't theoretical; the censorship of threat-focused training
materials for law enforcement and the intelligence community is
something that happened under the Obama administration. At the urging
of Islamists groups beginning in 2009, the Departments of Justice,
Defense, Homeland Security, and the Central Intelligence Agency came
under attack for so-called ``Islamophobic'' analysis that dealt with
the enemy threat doctrine in general--and Islamic law and the Muslim
Brotherhood in particular.\6\ Eventually, these efforts proved
successful, as the agencies purged training materials, cancelled
lectures, fired personnel, and essentially stopped teaching who the
enemy is.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Lawmaker Questions FBI Materials Purge,'' Investigative
Project on Terrorism, May 4, 2012. http://www.investigativeproject.org/
3566/lawmaker-questions-fbi-materials-purge.
\7\ ``Cruz chews out Johnson over DHS `purge' of `Islam' references
in terror reports,'' Washington Times, June 30, 2016. http://
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/ted-cruz-chews-out-jeh-
johnson-over-dhs-purge-of-j/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The doctrines of Islam are not a race or a protected class; they
are not human beings with rights and feelings. Political systems, like
opinions, must be questioned. They must be lampooned and mocked and
derided--not because they are all deserving of such treatment, but
because ideas that we are not permitted to attack are the ideas that
control us.
It's neither racist nor bigoted to say that Islamism exists, and
that it is both horrific and a threat to our way of life. It is no more
deserving of respect than Communism or Nazism, or any other idea or
belief system in history--all of which have gone through rigorous
scrutiny. Islam as it has evolved to a 21st Century is a political
ideology that must be studied, understood, and defeated. While previous
generations defeated these totalitarianisms, our leaders are now
standing in their own way, seemingly paralyzed, avoiding the task ahead
of them.
Many who accuse others of ``Islamophobia'' believe they're doing
good, protecting a vulnerable minority from a majority culture they are
suspicious of. What they actually do is two very dangerous things: (a)
Promote the idea that the only legitimate expression of Islam is
Islamism, and (b) ratify the Islamists' hold on the Muslim community
through the organizations it legitimizes through outreach.
First, when criticism or analysis of Islam's doctrines are not
permitted lest the critic be accused of ``Islamophobia'' or ``hate
speech,'' it becomes impossible for Muslim Reform to succeed. The
version of Islam embraced by today's Islamic authorities is
undemocratic and totalitarian. It remains protected only because it
masquerades as religion, when it is, rather, a tyrannical, political
parasite feeding off a religion.
Islamism is a political philosophy with its own intellectual and
religious history. In addition, of course, to Islamic law and doctrine,
in both theory and practice Islamism owes a debt to various modern
conceptions of Western statism. Because of the totalitarian nature of
Islamic law, it has occasionally intertwined and cross-pollinated with
fascism, socialism, and communism.\8\ It is important to note that
Islamism has not mixed--and, in fact, does not mix--with a tradition of
liberty or freedom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``How Islam got political: Founding fathers,'' BBC News,
November 10, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4424208.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the modern era, Islamism is a political movement that works to
compete explicitly with our conception of Enlightenment liberal
democracy in order to advance the role of Islam as an explicit
governing system. It has its own political philosophy which is
necessarily at odds with the Rights and Freedoms guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution and its Amendments.
While I am a Muslim, I reject Islamism because I embrace our
country's Constitution, and the Rights and Freedoms it explicitly
protects. A reformed Islam can coexist quite comfortably within this
Constitutional framework; Islamism, on the other hand, is in direct
conflict. Because of these views, the Obama administration has never
included me in a meeting. And yet the thousands of Muslim Reformers
still waiting to emerge are the only truthful allies America has in
this fight.
Defeating the global scourge of Islamism is going to require
breaking the political ideology, and also taking on the theology.
Tackling the theology through which Islam is understood is necessary to
push past second-hand sources--such as the infallibility of the Qur'an
and its Messenger. This is where Muslim Reformers--rather than those
who would claim a meaningless descriptor of simply ``moderate
Muslims''--have our work cut out for us.
Muslim Reformers are staring up at the immense wave of Islamism
about to crash to shore. Because the climate is hostile to us, we need
all the help we can get. We must activate networks of truly open-minded
Muslims and create a platform to amplify their voices. Presently change
agents continue to work with minimal resources, near zero funding, and
face a combative pro-censorship environment.
Reformers must work to reinitiate a tradition of philosophical
questioning that has been lost to Islam. Islam did not arrive as a
static faith; even the Prophet's core message changed substantially,
leading to the abrogation of key doctrines even during his lifetime.
Post-Muhammad, there were 200 years of scholarly devotion to
understanding the faith. However, this spirit of inquiry that advanced
the faith and the ability to re-contextualize long-established
doctrines was lost. Muslim Reformers and their allies have successfully
reinitiated a spirit of inquiry.
Unfortunately, however, virtually every major Muslim group in
America is working against the Reform project. They are working against
me, as a Muslim Reformer, as I try to bring Islam into modernity. And,
for this reason, they are working against you as well.
Recently, Facebook shut me down for speaking out on reform.
Islamists in the United States attack me for exposing them and
defending truth-tellers.\9\ At the same time, Islamist front groups
with ties to both terror and sedition enjoy privileged status in the
media, the White House and before in Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Facebook Banned Me for Criticizing Islamists, But I Got the
Last Laugh,'' Shireen Qudosi, Counterjihad.com, September 2, 2016.
http://counterjihad.com/facebook-banned-criticizing-islamists-got-last-
laugh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it say to Muslim Reformers when the Secretary of Homeland
Security attends the convention of the Islamic Society of North America
(ISNA), a group whose Fiqh Council members have issued fatwas (rulings
of Islamic law) that condone ``seeking martyrdom'' by attacking U.S.
military personnel, support the murder of homosexuals, and oppose and
condemn Muslims who ``befriend'' non-Muslims?\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Fiqh Council of North America,'' Muslim Brotherhood
Unmasked. http://www.brotherhoodunmasked.net/organizations-connected-
to-the-muslim-brotherhood/fcna.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What message does it send when the President gives a speech from a
mosque where women are forced into separate and unequal spaces\11\ and
whose prayer leader was part of an organization designated for funding
terrorism?\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Obama's mosque visit demonstrates tacit acceptance of a form
of gender apartheid,'' New York Times, February 3, 2016. http://
nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/02/03/obamas-mosque-visit-
demonstrates-tacit-acceptance-of-a-form-of-gender-apartheid.
\12\ ``Islamic American Relief Agency, Long Accused of Terror
Finance, Pleads Guilty on Sanctions Violations,'' Counterjihad.com,
July 26, 2016 http://counterjihad.com/islamic-american-relief-agency-
long-accused-terror-finance-pleads-guilty-sanctions-violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or when the Department of Justice meets with groups like CAIR,
which was the Justice department itself has said was founded as a
conspiracy to support Hamas, they are offering an implicit support for
a group which has labeled Muslim Reformers as ``Islamophobes,'' opening
them up to accusations of blasphemy, apostasy, and even death
threats?\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``CAIR's `Islamophobia' List Is a `Hit List,' Say Critics,''
Breitbart, June 23, 2016. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/
06/23/cair-islamophobia-hitlist/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America isn't simply a physical space; it is a set of shared ideals
that are codified into law and custom. Even in a highly partisan
political climate, to function fairly and comfortably in the United
States, there is an unspoken social contract. The presence of citizens
with Islamist ideas within a polity has consequences for citizens of a
free society.
In order to get a clearer picture of the danger posed by Islamism,
what follows are some examples of values or principles on which we, as
Americans, should be able to agree, and the Islamist doctrines that
could come into conflict with each.
You must believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the
land, not that:
It's wrong to obey laws or help law enforcement officers if
that might lead to negative consequences for you or someone
else belonging to your religion (Reliance of the Traveler/
'Umdat al-Salik, Book R, Holding One's Tongue, Section r7.0,
Giving Directions to Someone Who Wants To Do Wrong, p. 743-44);
Laws passed by an elected Congress or a parliament are, by
their very nature, illegal and that only laws revealed by the
deity of your religion are allowed (Q 8:39); or that
Any government established by laws and rules other than the
ones allowed in your religion should be overthrown by force or
subversion and replaced with one that only allows your religion
(Q 8:39; Q 9:5; Q 9:29).
You must believe in freedom of religion, not that:
Beheading [or otherwise harming] those who do not believe as
you do is what God wants (Q 47:4);
Jews are an inferior people who should be denigrated and
demeaned and not treated equally in court (Q 2:65, Q 5:60, Q
7:166);
Anyone outside of your religion is legally forbidden from
building or repairing a house of worship (Reliance of the
Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book O, Justice, Section o11.0, Non-
Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl al-Dhimma), p. 607-9)
(Pact of Umar);
Verbal or written criticism of your religious beliefs should
be criminalized, possibly even by the death penalty (Reliance
of the Traveler/Umdat al-Salik, Book R, Holding One's Tongue,
Section r2.0, Slander, p. 730; Q 49:12; Q 104.1; Q 68:11);
Deciding to leave the religion of your family should be a
death penalty crime (Q 16:106); or that
Offensive warfare to force those who don't accept your
religion to submit to it is not only permissible but obligatory
before God (Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book O,
Justice, Section 01.2, p. 584; Book O, Justice, Section o9.0,
Jihad, p. 599, Q 8:39).
You must oppose cruel and unusual punishments, not believe that:
Chopping off hands and/or feet is an acceptable legal
punishment for theft (Q 5:38-39);
Lashing people in public for moral offenses, like having sex
outside of marriage, should be the law (Q 24:2); or that
Adultery should be punished by stoning to death (Sahih al-
Bukhari, ``Bab al Janaiz, Vol. 2, p. 90; Vol. 3, ``Bab al
Wakalah fi al Hudud'', p. 65; Vol. 7, ``Kitab al Ayman'', p.
218; Vol. 8, ``Bab al Rajm,'' pp. 24. 29. 34, 135; Sunan Al
Tirmidhi, ``Kitab al Hudud'', Vol. 4, pp. 27, 33, 34.).
You must value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not
believe that:
A parent may kill their own child for any reason with no
legal consequences (Reliance of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik,
Book O, Justice, Section o1.2, pp. 583-84);
Government should enforce public dress code rules (Reliance
of the Traveler/'Umdat al-Salik, Book M, Marriage, Section
m2.3, p 512; Section m2.7, pg. 513);
Slavery should be legal (Q 23:5, Q 70:30, Sahih Bukhari,
Vol. 7, p. 137).
You must believe that all men and women were created equal, not
that:
A woman should have to have 4 adult male witnesses to prove
she's been raped or face charges of adultery (Q 24:4-5);
The word of a man in a court of law can only be countered by
that of two women (Q 2:282);
A sister should inherit one-half what her brother inherits
(Q 4:11);
A man has the right to multiple wives, but that a woman
should only have one husband (Q 4:3);
There is no such thing as marital rape, because a man should
be able to use his wife when and how he likes, with or without
her consent (Q 2:223); or that
Females should be ``circumcised''--have their genitals
mutilated--to ensure their chastity (Reliance of the Traveler/
'Umdat al-Salik, Book E, Purification, Section e4.3, pg. 59).
For the most committed liberals and conservatives--the most
partisan Republicans and Democrats--can you not see that the issues
that divide you are relatively small and inconsequential in comparison?
These doctrines are cited from the most authoritative texts within
Islam, including the Qur'an, the Hadith, and recognized texts of
Islamic jurisprudence. It is important to note that, while an
individual Islamist could disagree personally with one or more of
these, they are part of authoritative, Islamic law according to the
rules of Islamic jurisprudence and by the consensus of Islamic legal
scholarship.
This means that, for Islamists, even if there is a personal
distaste for some of these tyrannical and barbaric practices, there is
nonetheless the understanding that, as these doctrines are part of
Islamic law: (a) they will not do battle against them through a process
of Reform; (b) they will turn a blind eye as communities indoctrinate
their children; and (c) they will demonize anyone who raises the
problem as an ``Islamophobe.''
No other idea in human history has ever received the level of
insulation that Islam is receiving today. Western society needs to
remember that not all things should be tolerated; not all ideas are
equal.
Speaking about his refusal to use the words ``Islamic terrorism,''
President Obama asked, rhetorically, ``So, someone seriously thinks
that we don't know who we're fighting?''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``President Obama Slams `Yapping' Over `Radical Islam' And
Terrorism,'' National Public Radio, June 14, 20016. http://www.npr.org/
sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/14/482041137/president-obama-slams-yapping-
over-radical-islam-and-terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would raise my hand emphatically. If called upon, I'd respond
respectfully that, ``Mr. President, you don't know who you're fighting
because you don't know who or what you're dealing with. You don't see a
monster for what it is because it tells you it isn't a monster. Or, to
carry the metaphor further, because it tells you there's no such thing
as monsters.''
There is an inner struggle among Muslims today and growing
conversations and collaborations that are pushing for the change that
comes through critical dialogue and exposure. Yet this evolutionary
leap is being held back by a Western society insulating it from
critical thought by the politically correct impulse to and the Islamist
campaign to silence criticism through hysteria about ``Islamophobia.''
Even if Islamists never pick up a physical weapon, they are on the
other side in this fight. The battle isn't just an issue with ISIS,
which has become the predominant focus of most leaders and public
opinion. This war will never end by simply playing whack-a-mole and
taking the fight over there. There is no ``over there.'' The war is
taking place multiple fronts and in several forms. It is, ultimately, a
war of ideas and the battlefield is the mind.
Today, there is no greater challenge than the challenge of
Islamism. This enemy does not wear a uniform; it has neither a
distinguishable accent or a unified language; it does not have the same
country of origin. In fact, there is nothing that unifies them beyond
Islamist ideology.
For this challenge we need leadership of the same character resolve
that got us through World Wars and Cold Wars in generations past. We're
going to need leaders who are unafraid of being disliked, because what
needs to be done to protect both America's National security and the
Rights and Freedoms guaranteed by our Founding documents. Nothing less
will suffice.
reccomendations
1. Identify and understand the ideological conveyor belt Islamists
use to create jihadists, both outside and inside the United
States.
This process, as well as the infrastructure that supports it, is
not much different in Pakistan than it is in Michigan; the
foundational concepts and texts are the same. This means
monitoring fundamentalist mosques and communities in addition
to Islamic State websites and message boards. Law enforcement
must be aware of the physical space rather than just the
digital space.
2. Insist that those coming to our country share our values, which
means restricting the ability of known, identified Islamists to
immigrate.
This means identifying the defining characteristics of Islamism,
including the major political parties and movements that
embrace it. There are hundreds of such groups, and all they
have in common is that they ultimately want to impose seventh-
century Islam on the entire world. Just as you shouldn't import
jihadists, you need to also stop importing Muslims who are
likely of activating as radicals or Islamist. It is also not
good enough to import people who are tacitly compliant in the
face of Islamism. This makes the job of the Muslim Reformer
more difficult.
3. Initiate outreach efforts that require new Muslim immigrants to
interact with Muslim Reformers and secular Muslims.
Recognizing that not everyone who needs to be kept at bay will
be kept at bay, it is critical to allow reform-minded
communities (rather than Islamist organizations) to help
integrate new immigrants or refugees of Islamic background. At
present, almost all new Muslim immigrants stay within an
enclave that is racially segregated and almost impossible to
penetrate. This must change, as it is not in the interest of
social cohesion, integration, or National security to encourage
ghettoization.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Ms. Qudosi.
The Chair recognizes himself for a period of questioning. I
will start with Mr. Hoekstra. According to your testimony,
jihadists have murdered at an alarming rate. These murders have
skyrocketed since 2009, as you said, with nearly 30,000 killed
last year. What do you see as the causes of this dramatic
increase? I was going to save this question until after you
answered that one, but maybe this question will help inform the
answer to the next one.
So you are already familiar with PSD-11 which, as a matter
of fact, you made me aware of it. With that, does that affect
domestic policy which then potentially affects the increase in
these killings? How would you characterize that, if there is
one, effect on the policy here at home and abroad? What signs,
if there are any, that we can see that indicate the effect of
that?
For instance, what many of us in Congress and around the
country feel is an unwillingness by the administration to
identify the enemy, is that enrobed, potentially, in that
policy?
Are we too close to it and is the administration wedded to
that policy so closely that now, for the sake of embarrassment
or for the considerations of the dramatic failures in North
Africa and in the Middle East that they just don't want to talk
about it? So we can't say radical Islam or Islamists or those
type of things. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Mr. Hoekstra. All right, let me address this. The second
part of your question, first, is what has been the impact of
implementing a policy directive like PSD-11 domestically? The
impact domestically is that there are numerous examples which
we have identified at the Investigative Project on Terrorism,
and actually have a book coming out next month, because the
evidence is so extensive, so deep and so broad, about the
different types of people that have now been coming into the
United States under visas to visit, the meetings that have been
going on with these individuals and policymakers at State and
at the White House is frightening.
There is example after example after example of individuals
who have embraced Hamas, who have embraced suicide bombers,
issued Fatwahs against, and the death penalty against members
of the LGBT community who, in prior administrations, would
never have been granted access into the United States. They
would never have gotten a visa.
The State Department and Homeland Security would have taken
a look at their background, their public statements and their
actions and said, no, they are not getting into the United
States.
This administration has not only welcomed them into the
United States, has welcomed them into the policy arms of the
U.S. Federal Government. So that is how it has expanded
domestically.
These individuals then frequently will travel around the
United States speaking at a number of the organizations that
Zuhdi has identified, and they will also participate in
fundraising and espousing the same messages of hate that they
have given overseas and doing the same thing here in the United
States.
Internationally, as I said, yes, you know, it is absolutely
important to identify the enemy, and we have. All right? What
has happened with the Obama administration is that they have
narrowed the definition of who the enemy is by embracing with
individuals that the Clinton administration, the Bush
administration always would have identified as being part of
the problem and identifying them as the enemy.
The biggest example is the Muslim Brotherhood. Under PSD-
11, and this is why I think it is absolutely critical that you
get the information of who was vetted, how they were vetted and
who we actually started to engage with. But engaging with the
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and in Libya, two countries that
were strong allies in fighting radical jihadists, OK?
We facilitated or actively participated in their overthrow.
We almost lost Egypt, all right? But thankfully, the forces
that be in the country came back and we stopped the Muslim
Brotherhood regime in Egypt after 1 year. We did lose Libya. So
why do you see this escalation in the number of people who are
victims? Because we lost Northern Africa, the weapons caches.
We lost intelligence.
I mean, I was Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We
met with Gaddafi and his intelligence individuals. They were
providing us with insights into the threat from radical
jihadism not only in Libya but throughout Northern Africa and
parts of the Middle East. Gaddafi was good at gathering
intelligence of these bad folks because they threatened his
regime.
After 2004, he shared that information with us extensively
and cooperated with us. After 2011 that all went dark. In
Egypt, cooperation with their intelligence has gone largely
dark after 2011 because they no longer believe that they can
trust us. In Iraq we have gone dark.
So in a lot of these different areas where we used to get
valuable intelligence, great participation, insights into the
threat, those countries have now become failed states and they
are havens for preparing, planning, and executing attacks
against the United States.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. My time has
expired. Since there are only two of us left, if you don't
mind, we will probably go a couple rounds because I have some
more questions.
But at this time, I yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Thank you for
your testimony. I want to understand a couple of things. Is the
term Islam, is that the definition of a religion? Can I equate
Islam with Christianity, Judaism? Is it the same thing? Is it
or is it not? Anybody? Anybody on the panel?
Dr. Jasser. Congresswoman, I would tell you Islam is what a
Muslim believes it to be. So my Islam is certainly, I feel,
similar to the morals of Judaism and Christianity in my
personal practice and what I teach my children. But the Islam
of Saudi Arabia, of the Khomeinis of Iran is an evil
supremacist doctrine. So the question is whose Islam? I think
it is similar in other faiths.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Well, thank you. So that is an equation
to a terminology from my religion--I am a Christian--
Christianity, right? Did you have something you want to say to
this?
Ms. Aziz. Yes. So Islam is a religion, a monolithic
religion. Like any other religion, there are multiple
interpretations. There are sects within the faith. Much of it
is based on history.
Ms. Watson Coleman. So is mine.
Dr. Jasser. Monotheistic.
Ms. Aziz. Monotheistic, excuse me. But also if you equate a
religion with criminal activity of individuals, then you are
essentially criminalizing the----
Ms. Watson Coleman. You are ahead of me.
Ms. Aziz [continuing]. The religion.
Ms. Watson Coleman. You are ahead of me, because that is my
concern. Because we have experienced in this country very
heinous crimes, killings done by people of other religions. But
we have not attached an -ism to it or an I-S-T to it and indict
a whole religion. So I don't know how that is helpful.
Ms. Qudosi. If I may speak?
Ms. Watson Coleman. When I ask you.
Ms. Qudosi. Sure.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I don't see the helpfulness
in ascribing that to a religion and taking it into this sort of
geopolitical or theopolitical environment. I will ask you--I
want to speak to you a second, Dr. Aziz, because you said CVE
is an unnecessary waste of money and in some ways it is
counterproductive.
So my question is, is there a role for either countering
violent extremism through education and social services and
community building? Or is there just no role for that in our
country at this time?
Ms. Aziz. Well, first I think we need to be very careful
that we don't turn into thought police. If we start to
criminalize and surveil religious beliefs, one is we may be
infringing or are likely infringing on the First Amendment and
opening the door to doing so with many other religious groups.
The second is you have to focus on individualized
activities, predicate acts for criminal activities that are
reasonably suspicious. That will eventually lead you to the
crime. These are very traditional, long-standing practices of
law enforcement.
Ms. Watson Coleman. So the issue should be for us to be
developing these relationships and transform and educate our
total community and as a means of prevention, preparation, and
prevention, identification and encourage sharing. But there is
a problem with that in your testimony, I believe, because the
only agencies involved in this have a law enforcement
identification. Did I get that? Is that accurate?
Ms. Aziz. Yes, law enforcement is leading the effort and
social services agencies are effectively being co-opted. That
is going to create distrust with communities because they are
going to be worried that this is a ruse to spy on them and
chill their religious freedom and political beliefs.
Ms. Watson Coleman. That is kind-of where I also wanted to
go. I wanted to know, since you said, is you worked in the
Muslim community quite extensively. How does the community or
the communities feel about the CVE or projectivity sort of
prioritization?
Ms. Aziz. It has created a lot of divisions. Many
organizations want to work with the Government in dealing with
social problems, economic problems that face Muslim American
communities, as they face many other communities, particularly
problems that are associated with being low-income or being a
new immigrant community where you may need particulars or----
Ms. Watson Coleman. So what do you the pathway should
really be?
Ms. Aziz. I think that the Government should take the money
from CVE, give it to social services organizations like the
Department of Education and Health and Homeland Security and
focus on helping communities across the country that are low-
income, that have specific social challenges, and creating
healthy, thriving, prosperous communities.
That, ultimately, is going to prevent all kinds of social
problems and criminal activity from gangs to vulnerable youth
who may, in fact, be recruited on-line, in secret, by
international terrorists outside of the view of their families
and their communities.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Ms. Qudosi, excuse me for cutting you off but you can't
mess with my train of thought when it is going. So allow me to
let you----
Ms. Qudosi. Thank you.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Respond.
Ms. Qudosi. Thank you. To answer your question about what
is Islam, I agree with Dr. Jasser that Islam is very personal.
Islam, when it was birthed was meant to be a pathway, a guide
in the monotheistic tradition of Judaism and Christianity.
Now, this shift happened initially after the first 12 years
of Mohammed's prophethood when he went from peaceful to
warmongering, if we are going to be honest. He waged jihad
campaigns. Even if he didn't partake in those, he instructed
those. He agreed to those. He didn't contest them.
So when we talk about is a religion violent or does it
excuse terror, well, we call it terror today. We call it
violence today. Back then, that was just the way of the land,
and that is the way of the people.
So we have to understand that we are dealing with something
really ancient, and it has come to this point and time. We are
using modern language, and we are using, you know, our very
limited scope of the last 100 years to understanding something
that has been going on for 1,400 years.
So in that sense, how did Islam become political? Well
after the Prophet's death is really when it became a monolith
of a political identity and ideology. That started with the
caliphate.
From there on it landed into the Umayyad Dynasty. This is a
very complex thing. So Islam, from the get-go, has been very
political. That is where we have sort-of wandered off-path.
So when we as Muslims say today that Islam isn't political,
it is just peace, it is not peace and war, we as Muslims don't
understand our own faith. That is the problem. So to say that
CVE, for example, should only be given to social services also
fails to understand who we are as Muslims culturally.
There is a great agency in Southern California called
Access, started by an Arab lady. It took her a very long time
to build that up. But one of the challenges she had with that
is that Muslims don't speak out.
If we need mental health or behavioral health, we don't
seek it. We don't identify it. If we need counseling, we don't
shame ourselves, ``by asking for help.'' So trusting that
social services somehow is magically going solve this is not
understanding the mentality of the Muslim mindset.
Ms. Watson Coleman. OK. Equating their religion, does that
help them to violence and terrorism, does that encourage them
to be outspoken on their needs and desire to participate? Thank
you.
Ms. Qudosi. Could you clarify by equating your religion?
Could you clarify the question? By equating religion?
Ms. Watson Coleman. You say that they are very quiet, they
are very insular. They don't speak out. My question to you is
are you encouraging them to be more outspoken, to be more
engaging, to be more participatory if you indict their religion
as something that is dangerous and akin to terrorism? That was
just my statement.
Ms. Qudosi. Sure, I would love to answer that. Thank you.
The direction that we are going with, as Muslims, is one of
confrontation-conversation within ourselves and our own
community, first and foremost. I have been talking about
reform, before reform was even a catch phrase--16 years ago is
when I first started this. The more I talk to Muslims, the more
the conversation gets pushed even----
Ms. Watson Coleman. Excuse me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to yield back. I am way over my time
here. If you would like to pursue it.
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Ms. Qudosi. I can wrap it up real quick.
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Ms. Qudosi. We are going to have division in our community.
There is going to be confrontation. These are divisive times.
Going to a successful conclusion means having those
uncomfortable conversations. So we shouldn't be wary of
division, or afraid of it. We should embrace it, and use that
as opportunities to really push this dialog forward. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, and the Chair thanks the gentlelady
from New Jersey as well.
Dr. Jasser, Secretary Johnson earlier this year in front of
the Senate Judiciary Committee stated ``If we in our efforts
here in the homeland start giving the Islamic State the
credence that they want to be referred to as part of Islam, or
some form of Islam, we will get nowhere in our efforts to build
bridges with Muslim communities, which we need to do in this
current environment right now.''
Now I am not a Muslim, right? So we are trying to figure
this out, and we asked you to come and help us. A couple things
come to mind. I think there is a doctor of Islamic theology
named al-Baghdadi who named the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria. I am thinking, well, he is a doctor of the religion. As
far as I know, that is his background. That is his education.
Who am I to question him, if that is what he calls it?
I wonder if there is a difference between Islamist and
Islamic because we use--the Islamist term is used in the 9/11
Commission Report. We are trying to be very clear here, because
we don't want to indict a whole religion, but we need to get to
the focus of the problem. So does the use of Islamic terms when
discussing groups like Isis or al-Qaeda really enhance their
credibility?
Dr. Jasser. Chairman, actually not using it enhances their
credibility, because what it does is it lets the loudest, most
militant voices, and the governments and the organizations that
currently have the mantle of Islam to dominate the
conversation.
So whenever Americans or Homeland Security or government
wants to look up Islam, they Google Islam and go to the Islamic
identified groups, and it is going to be those that have the
heaviest traffic on the internet, and those that are making
proclamations like Baghdadi was.
At the end of the day, it then also lets the silent
majority stay asleep. There is no reason for Muslims that I am
told every day that agree with what I am doing. Yet they say,
gosh, I don't want to get the targets that is on your back by
doing the reform because when you stick your head up, it is
going to get, you know, attacked.
So at the end of the day, by denying the reality of the
source, you are actually then it is a bigotry of low
expectations, which is, oh, we know the president, you know,
the head of the Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't speak for all
Islam, but we will let you guys pass on the fact that it is a
homophobic, supremacist country in its government.
We will pass the fact that the royal family of Saudi Arabia
is actually brewing and spreading billions of dollars of ideas
that are actually the forefathers of ISIS in their ideas. We
will pass that fact, and let them speak for Islam.
Because if we talk about Islam in the freest country of the
world, then it will all turn into anti-Islamic stuff, when in
fact, people are flogged in front of mosques every day in Saudi
Arabia that say what we are telling you.
So in effect, we are actually invoking the same blasphemy
laws in America that they do in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because of
this fear of somehow that it is gonna become anti-Islam.
Actually, at the end of the day, the best answer to your
question is one of denial.
It is like the smokers who don't want to admit that the
cancer, lung cancer, is coming from the smoking. The smoking--
we are not abandoning the whole patient, but the smoking, the
habit that is dealing to this, is Harakat-e-Islami, is what
they call themselves in Arabic--Islamic movements. Political
movements.
So they might take away the tactic, and there is this huge
letter to Baghdadi that all these organizations that are
supported by ISNA and other Imams. They wrote a 25-page screed
about why Baghdadi doesn't have the authority to declare jihad.
He doesn't have the authority to declare a caliphate.
What Americans--and the reason I am bringing your attention
to it, they said the caliphate is mandatory in that letter.
They said jihad, violent jihad is mandatory, but he doesn't
have the credence or the authority.
So that is the bigger problem. That is the intoxicant. It
is not just the violence in these little terror groups that we
can defeat militarily. It is the root cause. The root cause is
this idea that violent jihad, Muslims can do that. Armies
should be Muslim by name. That the Ummah is a State. It is not
just a faith practice.
Until we Muslims address that, and you bring us and force--
push us to do this, not by taking away our rights, but by
actually having an adult conversation, and not by infantilizing
our community into saying, oh, we can't address these things.
So you have to address it and get us out of the denial that is
preventing the treatment of the disease.
Mr. Perry. So how do you believe the--I call censoring of
certain terms when discussing violent Islamist extremists
affects the Government's ability to interact with the Muslim
communities in the United States? I mean does this practice in
in fact make us less secure? I think you would agree it does.
Dr. Jasser. Absolutely. It makes us less secure because
then what ends up happening is, again, like I said in my
opening, the arsonists are actually helping us fight fires. We
aren't, I mean, Muslim, when I hear them talk about the
community, are you working with the community or what is the
effort?
The effort is not just Muslims that go to mosque or that
are parts of these Islamic groups. It is Muslims that are
physicians, attorneys, that work in civic organizations and
ethnic organizations from Indian organizations, Arabic, et
cetera--Syrian organizations, not just religious groups.
We are a diverse community. When Homeland Security and
others want to reach out, don't just go to the mosque. I mean,
just like in the reformation in the West, it was led by the
business community and the others that finally told the
theocrats that they don't run what defines Christianity. That
ultimately led to the American Revolution.
This is where we are in our time in history in Islam. As
long as we continue to have this bigotry of low expectations
where we just let the theocrats dominate who defines Islam,
which is what the avoidance of the term does, then we are going
to continue to actually do the bidding of our enemies, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et cetera, and actually not work with our
Muslims that share our values of freedom, democracy, and the
universal declaration of human rights.
Mr. Perry. Do you have something to add, Mr. Hoekstra, to--
--
Mr. Hoekstra. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
important to have that discussion, as Zuhdi was pointing out,
because those of us who have traveled to the Middle East and
those types of things, we recognize, as should all Americans,
the many sacrifices that so many Muslims have paid to help us.
You know, after the war in Iraq, and you go to the police
training academies and you speak with the young men who are
being trained and you recognize that many of these officers
ended up being killed because they were targeted by radical
jihadists. We need to celebrate the contributions and the
sacrifices that those folks made.
The folks that worked that worked with the American
military in Iraq, who were targeted as they were working with
us and especially targeted when we left Iraq and Afghanistan
for being, you know, for working with us. They were targeted.
We also need to recognize that the victims of radical jihadism
are primarily other Muslims.
You know, it is awful what radical jihadists do to
Christians and other religious minorities throughout the Middle
East, but the primary target and the groups paying the biggest
price are actually other Muslims.
So by moving that total discussion off of the table, you
don't have that dialog and discussion about how much other
Muslims have sacrificed to try to help us and how much they
want to get rid of the radical jihadist movement.
Mr. Perry. Do you want to move on?
Ms. Watson Coleman. Well, I don't really like to--I notice
that you wanted an opportunity to sort-of weigh in on a
discussion that just taken place. I wanted to present that
opportunity to you with my time.
Ms. Aziz. Thank you. I just have a few points. The first is
that the Government is prohibited by the First Amendment in
entangling itself in religion. The establishment clause
prohibits the Government from either promoting or infringing on
religion and that would include engaging in theological
debates. It is not the place, both as a matter of policy but
more importantly as a matter of law for the Government to
intervene in determining what is correct or incorrect in Islam.
That is just something that has to happen within the
communities, within the private sphere. My colleagues here are
welcome to engage in that debate within the free marketplace of
ideas. In fact, there are many debates that are going on, at
least within the American Muslim communities--which are very
diverse--about reform. People define reform very differently.
So I think that it is a bit disingenuous to say that
American Islam is stagnant, and that there are no debates, that
there are no healthy discussions.
The second point is I don't think we should underestimate
the open letter to Baghdadi. We are talking about over 700
mainstream religious authorities, scholars who are qualified,
who have degrees, not people who just self-proclaim themselves
to be experts or self-proclaim themselves to be reformists.
Those individuals across the world have said this organization
is fringe.
It is violent. It is terrorist. It doesn't represent Islam
insofar as their interpretations of the theology. Like in any
theology, there always has been and there always will be groups
who are going to misappropriate it for their political means.
I just want to also add with regard to the Middle East,
secular military dictators are repressing people as much as
those who use religion as a ruse to oppress people. So for us
to think that it is one problem, the Muslim Brotherhood, or
some particular other organization that claims to use religion
for political means, that is very simplistic.
Egypt is a ticking time bomb, and it is going to have
another revolution in my opinion, and it is going to be because
of poverty, political repression, that is caused by military
secular dictatorships.
Mr. Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Dr. Jasser.
Dr. Jasser. Yes, thank you. I welcome the opportunity to
respond to that because this is actually the key issue is that
it is a cop-out to say that the Government cannot get involved.
When you have a movement that is a theopolitical movement, it
would be like in the Cold War saying that we should work with
the Italian communists or the Cuban communists when we were
fighting the Soviets.
The Islamist movements are political movements that put
into law legal systems that believe that Western secular law is
un-Islamic, and they divide the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar
al-Harb, the land of Islam, and the land of war. So if you are
wondering how the Omar Mateens and others get radicalized, they
are simply the tip of the iceberg of movements that view
Western liberal democracies as the enemy.
So our Constitution, and our First Amendment, is not a
suicide pact. We cannot therefore say, well, if it calls itself
a religion, welcome. Give them security clearances, give them
whatever they want. It doesn't matter, because it is a
religion.
No, we have to have--and actually our response to the
letter to Baghdadi was our Muslim reform movement declaration
that we mailed twice to every mosque in the country, every
Islamic organization.
It is not 25 pages. It is 2 pages. It is in the record. It
is an appendix to my testimony. I would ask you to look at it.
It is simply 2 pages. It is not about religious theological
debates.
It says we reject the caliphate, all caliphates. We reject
the Islamic State, all Islamic States. We reject violent jihad.
We call for the equality of men and women, for the freedom of
sexual identity, for free speech, rejecting blasphemy laws,
apostasy laws.
So therefore, those are not religious issues. Those are
American principles that are part of the universal declaration
of human rights. So it is not, no, I don't want the Government
getting into theology, but I certainly want them protecting the
underpinning and foundations of our American democracy that is
based in religious freedom.
So when Raif Badawi, Wahlida Buheir and others in Saudi
Arabia are flogged for their religious beliefs, and I agree
with Dr. Aziz about secular dictators. Both pathways are evil
in the Middle East. We need to work toward a third pathway.
But to say that attacking secular dictators and then
saying, well, Islamist movements are somehow our friends
because they believe in elections, those are mobocracies. She
is right. There will be more revolutions in Egypt. I hope so.
But we need to be on the right side of history.
The denial to say, well, it is all about food and jobs, and
we just get social services. No. It is about a political
ideology that is rooted in Sharia statism. The only counter to
that is not countering the tactic, but promoting Muslims that
believe in national identity like Americanism, Egyptianism, a
Syrianism that believes in liberty for all, equally and not
about an Islamic State. That is what CVE should become, which
is CVI.
Mr. Perry. I would also say that while I find the military
dictatorships just as unpalatable as the theocratic ones, the
military dictatorships, generally speaking, that we might be
discussing for purposes of this conversation, aren't presenting
an imminent threat within and to our homeland, based on their
actions in their country, where the other is.
That having been said, I want to give Ms. Qudosi a couple
of opportunities to answer some questions here. In an article
in the Federalist that you authored earlier this year, you drew
a comparison between World War II and our current struggle
against violent Islamic extremism.
You argued that unlike today, during World War II, the
United States had no problem clearly defining its enemy. With
that, why do you believe this administration has been unable or
reluctant to name violent Islamist extremism as the enemy?
Ms. Qudosi. First and foremost, the answer pings off what
Dr. Aziz said. That is a question of our First Amendment
rights. It is not just about religion. It is also about free
speech, and that has been completely squashed.
There is so much purging, scrubbing. There is cultural
shaming, social shaming. We are just--excuse me--not allowed to
speak truthfully without being bashed by the majority Muslim
groups. That is No. 1.
So as a larger democracy, we are dealing with a climate
that doesn't understand that here is Islam, and then here is
how Islam started. Then here is how this political ideology
that grew out of Islam tacked itself on.
So we are dealing with a hybrid faith here that is part
theology, part ideology. That means we have to touch political
ideology. It is not just Islam. It is the ideology that has
come out of Islam that has mutated the faith. This is something
that Muslims simply do not even know about, let alone non-
Muslims. So that is part of the problem.
Not having understanding of that affects our ability to
really be able to come up with solutions. So when we say that,
you know, Islam is peace, or we are not at war with Muslims,
well, let's look at what a couple of Muslims have said.
Excuse me. Earlier this year, I interviewed Abu Taubah,
a.k.a. Marcus Dwayne Robertson, who was affiliated, or said to
be affiliated, with Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter. In an
exclusive 2-hour interview, he stoked race wars. He called for
militant Muslims. He said women were unfit for office. He
called for a radical war against the West. That is inevitable
in his eyes.
He is a Muslim convert, a highly-educated former
intelligence official in the United States Marine Corps. So
this is one example of a domestic Muslim. Internationally we
have Oriyah Makfuljan a Deobandi-Taliban supporter, a media
personality, and an Islamist in Pakistan, who was seen in 2009
outside Badshahi Mosque standing next to Hillary Clinton, then
Secretary of State.
While she is speaking about challenging extremism, and
challenging Taliban, here is a Taliban supporter right next to
her who has been quoted to publicly say that women like to be
beaten, the West are heartless killers, Jews are apocalyptic
destruction. In the coming war, he calls for all Muslims to
come to arms.
These are the people that we are dealing with. These are
the people who are using faith to drive that mission. So we can
sit here and say we are not going to touch Islam, but what is
the alternative here? I mean there is no alternative. We have
to touch it.
The other reason is that we keep saying what will ISIS say?
Well, ISIS isn't sitting over there wondering about what
Americans are going to say. ISIS is going to use whatever
narrative we throw at them and twist it. If we talk about ISIS
being Islamic, they have won. If we say ISIS is not Islamic,
they have still won because we are not addressing what gives
them validation.
That validation comes from the darkest underbelly of a
1,400-year-old faith that justified killing. Not to the
extremes that they have done it in, but still they use the seed
of Islamic terror to justify their actions, and launch a
caliphate, which was, again, still a part of original Islam and
part of Islam's origin story.
So the best way to tackle ISIS beyond whack-a-mole CVE
programs is to tackle their belief system, and to ultimately
destroy the credibility they hold, which is ultimately that
this is a divine mission for them on some level. So we have to
understand the theological aspect of it.
Mr. Perry. Yes. Could I supplant belief system with
ideology? Would it be--you say we have to attack their belief
system. Would it be correct or analogous to use ideology in the
same vein?
Ms. Qudosi. You could, but if I am gonna be brutally
honest, ultimately it comes down to what their identity, or
what their identity as Muslims is and what their belief system
is about God, or Allah. So that is really the root of the
problem.
So that any radicalized person--Omar Mateen, if you want to
talk about Abu Taubah, you want to talk about ISIS, al-Adnani,
these people ultimately look for a higher source, and that is
how they have interpreted God. So this becomes an ideological
and a theological debate.
At the same time, what we have here is we have a country
that doesn't want to be offensive, who wants to hide itself
under political correctness, while throwing billions if not
more dollars at a problem. How much more money are we gonna
throw at this problem and expect it to solve itself?
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks you, gentlelady.
Ms. Watson Coleman. I have two questions.
Mr. Perry. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much. Ms. Quo----
Mr. Perry. Qudosi.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Qudosi, I am sorry. I can't see the D
here. Can I just ask you what is your profession? What do you--
--
Ms. Qudosi. I am a writer.
Ms. Watson Coleman. That is----
Ms. Qudosi. Yes.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Are you an author, or do you----
Ms. Qudosi. I am working on 4 books at the moment, 2 of
them are almost done. I have been blogging with Qudosi
Chronicles. I have written for numerous outlets. I have
traveled overseas, studied communities, Japanese American and--
sorry--Japanese Muslim communities.
Ms. Watson Coleman. That is how you make a living? Is that
how you make a living?
Ms. Qudosi. Yes. I also do marketing, I do marketing
specifically for behavioral health, mental health, and for
education.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Oh, OK, thank you.
Dr. Jasser, you said something there. You said that the CVE
needs to change its name to CVI. So then are you suggesting
that CVE's only job should be to address counter violent
extremism in the Islam community? So what would we do, what
would its responsibility be in other space? Or do you feel that
there is no need for any activity in any other space of
domestic violence?
Dr. Jasser. I am glad you want me to clarify that. As far
as the context of this hearing, which is countering radical
Islamism and the terror that is invoked from that, I believe
that we need a CVI program.
Now that would be part of Department of Homeland Security's
other programs to keep us safe from all threats. But this
comparison, I think it is very ethno- and National-centric to
simply compare radical Islamic groups to other non-Islamic
terror threats in America.
Why? Because this is a global war that we are seeing simply
fought on the streets of America and on the streets of Europe.
But the bigger problem is the cataclysmic changes happening
within nations across the Middle East.
So that is going to reach into the biggest threat to those
dictatorships, and those Islamist movements, which is America.
It is gonna come here whether we are isolationist or not. The
way to counter that is to work with groups that share our
ideals within the Muslim community.
Josh Earnest from the administration talked about the
narrative, but his discussion of the narrative was simply a
negative, which was oh, we need to be apologetic that America
isn't bigoted, et cetera. I would tell you we need to promote
freedom and democracy within the Muslim community, domestically
and abroad, so----
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Dr. Jasser [continuing]. I think that is important.
Ms. Watson Coleman. I would like to just kind-of quote you.
``The only way to right this deep misdirection is actually very
simple. All we need to do is to abandon the mantra of
countering violent extremism, and replace it with countering
violent Islamism.''
Dr. Jasser. Absolutely. So if you are looking at, for
example----
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Dr. Jasser [continuing]. Extremism that may come from the
Nazi party, I would tell you it should be countering violence
of fascism. So extremism is simply a tactic.
Mr. Perry. The gentlelady has yielded her time. Reclaiming
my time now, if you want to finish your thought, Dr. Jasser,
you may.
Dr. Jasser. Thank you. Again, extremism, the reason we are
failing, we are holding our Homeland Security agents to a
standard that is impossible. It is turning into some truly
thought police, where they are trying to figure out when an act
is gonna happen. Acts come from ideas.
Every time, whether Fort Hood, when he is walking around
Walter Reed with cards that said Soldier of Allah. Whether it
was Omar Mateen, or any of the radicals. The Chattanooga Bomber
was posting on-line that he wanted to establish Islam on earth.
We weren't monitoring that.
Nobody is saying to take away their rights, but we need to
monitor that. That is not extremism, that is Sharia supremacist
ideology that we should be monitoring. And right now our
Homeland Security agents are unable to do that, because of
restrictions of verbiage in the lexicon that is blasphemy laws
that prevents them from doing their work.
Mr. Perry. I yield time to the gentlelady.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I don't think we disagree
that we should be vigilant, and we should be operating in every
space that represents a threat to the safety and security of
the United States of America. That is not a premise that I
disagree with.
I agree that we should be doing it. I just simply think
that we should not be targeting our language in such a way that
probably helps to fuel the recruitment and the expansion of
those that we are talking about today. With that, I thank you
very much.
Mr. Perry. Reclaiming my time.
Dr. Jasser.
Dr. Jasser. Well, I think it is willful blindness and
actually it encourages the radicals to see us in the freest
country on the planet, refuse to identify it as the problem,
the root cause as the Islamic State ideology, any Islamic State
ideology. That establishment clause that we are defending here
is the exact central nuclear idea that the Islamists hate. They
want to establish religion not only in their countries, but on
earth.
Muslims that reject that, are the ones we should bond with.
Homeland Security cannot bond with Muslims that want an
establishment clause in Muslim countries, unless we identify
the disease as Islamism domestically and abroad.
Thus we end up actually with these false partners. Imagine
the Cold War working with communist parties to help us against
the Soviets because they rejected Soviet global theory, but yet
they believed in communism.
That is what we are doing right now when we work with the
Islamic State ideologues of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others as
our partners against radical militant Islamists, and call them,
as Mr. Ellison did earlier, a cult, et cetera.
These are natural violent byproducts of Islamist nations
that is spread by billions. Books are in organizations and
mosques like the Islamic Society of North America mosques and
others, books like the ``Reliance of the Traveler'' that call
for the death of apostates and others, still are sold in their
conventions that Jeh Johnston speaks at. That is a problem of
willful blindness.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Dr. Jasser.
Ms. Aziz, you have argued that the recent rise in
radicalism and terrorism can be attributed to factors such as
political oppression and lack of economic opportunities in
countries. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that is
what I have got here.
So if that is not true, please forgive me and just let me
know. But if it is true, do you have any empirical data to
support that claim?
Ms. Aziz. Well, there are many studies by international
development experts that focus on failed states. In fact, there
are many--the literature is growing about what is happening in
the Middle East in terms of the causes for all of these deaths
that we see that are caused by terrorism.
So there is no shortage. It is certainly a debate within
the literature. But there is no shortage of opinion that the
terrorism is bred when you have failed states, when you have
conflict.
Mr. Perry. Well, so, and I imagine, I just wonder if there
is a causal relationship. I am not saying that it doesn't
happen in failed states where there is increased poverty and
lack of opportunity, et cetera. But we have it happening in the
United States. We have it happening in the most affluent
countries on the planet.
We have it happening and being led by, or having been led
by, some of the most affluent people on the planet in Osama bin
Laden, al-Zawahiri. These are educated people of means, yet
they ascribe to this ideology.
So when we hear that some of the roots are political
oppression and lack of economic opportunity, I got to tell you,
I find especially the political oppression, well, either one. I
mean the political oppression. These folks are oppressed
because they wish to overthrow the governments that they are
in.
Now, the governments they are in might be autocratic, but
they just wish to institute a theocratic government that is at
least as oppressive as the one that they just replaced. From
the economic standpoint these, again, are people of means. So
how do we validate that other than just saying it happens at
the same place? But I don't see a cause and effect, and that is
what I am looking for as some empirical data, if you have any.
Ms. Aziz. So I think you have to look at the leaders versus
the recruits, versus the opportunity. Leaders of most
politically motivated groups that use an ideology, whether it
is religious or secular in nature, are often actually quite
sophisticated. That is why they are not on the front lines and
they are very few in number. What the failed state and the
conflicts and the repression create is fertile ground for
recruitment.
So it makes it very easy to manipulate particularly young
people, often young men who may have mental health problems,
who may be experiencing a personal crisis, who may in fact be
poor, alienated, and marginalized, to essentially manipulate
them and lie to them, and say this ideology--if it is religious
it is often completely warped--is a justification for you to
join me.
Then when you have a failed state there is no state to
control that, there is no police force, there is no
intelligence. But I just want to note that in Syria, over
100,000 Syrians have died from state terrorism from Assad's
regime.
So non-state terrorism--if we didn't have the conflict in
Syria and Iraq right now, we would not nearly be seeing these
numbers in terms of victims of terrorism, which as my colleague
said, most of whom, over 90 percent are Muslims.
Mr. Perry. Which to some extent I would agree with you, and
I would refer back to PSD-11 and a change in policy where the
United States essentially partnered with the Muslim
Brotherhood, and people that are interested in a theocratic
state. We have created or been a party to creating this issue
in Northern Africa and the Middle East.
It has been a fascinating, enlightening discussion, and I
appreciate your patience and your diligence, both the
testifiers and the audience and the Members. Today the Chair
thanks very much the witnesses, especially those who have
traveled long distances for their valuable testimony, and the
Members for their questions.
Members may have some additional questions. If I may depart
just from the text for a moment? Dr. Jasser, you said there was
a 25-page--what did you----
Dr. Jasser. Two-page letter.
Mr. Perry. No, he had the 2-page letter that has already
been submitted. The 25-page----
Dr. Jasser. The letter to Baghdadi that actually my
colleague endorsed. So----
Mr. Perry. Has that been entered into the record?
Dr. Jasser. No, I didn't----
Mr. Perry. Could you forward that to me please, at your
earliest convenience?
Dr. Jasser. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perry. I appreciate it.
Ms. Watson Coleman. What is the 25-page supposed to be?
Mr. Perry. The 25-page, to be correct, right?
Dr. Jasser. The 2-page is part of the appendix. My
appendices of my testimony has the Muslim Declaration.
Ms. Watson Coleman. We didn't get either.
Mr. Perry. OK, we will make sure you do.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Yes.
Mr. Perry. But he is talking about the 25-page letter to
Baghdadi.
Dr. Jasser. Yes, that I didn't----
Mr. Perry. That is the one I want to see as well.
Ms. Watson Coleman. OK.
Mr. Perry. He has already submitted the 2-page with his
testimony. We will make sure you get it.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Right.
Mr. Perry. Yes, ma'am. All right.
So with that, Members may have some additional questions
for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in
writing.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(e), the hearing record rule,
will remain open for 10 days. Without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Honorable Barry Loudermilk for George Selim
Question 1. Could you provide the committee with the CVE curriculum
that your office is developing for the partners it is currently
engaging with? If so, please provide it in an addendum to your
response. If not, please explain why it cannot be shared with the
committee.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. Once an organization is in the review process to
receive a grant, are these organizations vetted for security issues? If
so, what type of screening criteria is in place to vet applicants?
Who, specifically, within DHS is doing the vetting?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. Does DHS have standing agreements with other agencies
to assist in the vetting process? If so, who are they and how are they
vetting applicants? If not, why?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2c. Who exactly is vetted? The organization, or
individuals within the organization? If only the organization as a
whole is vetted, and not individuals that comprise the organization,
are we not opening ourselves up to a large security gap?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2d. Is every single received application vetted? Or does
the vetting start after an applicant has successfully moved past an
initial review stage?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2e. Considering the grants are being awarded to counter
radical Islam, do you think the current vetting process is robust
enough? What more could or should be done? Please explain.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3a. As mentioned in Chairman Perry's opening statement,
properly defining the threat that we currently face is of the utmost
importance. However, the administration refuses to use terminology such
as ``Islamist'' when discussing extremism.
What terminology does the Office of Community Partnerships use to
define this terrorism?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. If the Office of Community Partnerships chooses to not
correctly or adequately define our enemy, how are you able to fully
advertise the CVE Grant Program? Do you think you would receive a
different set of applicants based on how you're viewing, or not viewing
radical extremism?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3c. What type of guidance or language in the grant
application forms specifically discusses the ideology of radical Islam?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3d. By not including proper background information on the
threat--for example the root causes of radicalization, and specific
language to frame the Islamist threat, do you think you are ignoring
the intent that Congress had when authorizing and appropriating these
funds?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.