tv Hearing Focuses on Violent Extremism CSPAN June 19, 2017 12:58pm-3:04pm EDT
[inaudible conversations] >> while the u.s. senate at 4 p.m. eastern today and senate lawmakers are expected to take up the nomination of brock long to be fema administrator with a the confirmation vote set for 5:30 p.m. eastern. news reports say democrats are planning essays and speeches until midnight to protest senate republicans not only committee hearings on the healthcare replacement bill. the house is back tomorrow to debate several homeland security and workforce related bills and there are two special elections on tuesday in georgia and south carolina. , f wednesday montana republican representative elect greg gianforte take will be sworn in. watch the house on c-span and the senate here on c-span two.
>> to a hearing on the ideology behind violent extremism and what the u.s. can do to counter it. foreman national counterterrorism center at director michael leiter testifies before the senate homeland security committee. >> good morning. this hearing is to order. i want to thank the witnessesss for your testimony for taking the time for your courage. the mission of this committee is pretty straightforward. to enhance the economic and national security of america and promote more efficient, effective and accountable government.. the committee really is in respects to committees in one from the house side. we have homeland security and where governmental affairs. this hearing is really focusing on the homeland security side of the committee structure. and within that structure we
have four priorities. border security, cybersecurity, protecting critical infrastructure, and countering extremism and violence in any form, including islamist terrorism. what we try and do in this committee is due this hearing process, lay out a reality. i come from a manufacturing background. solve a lot of problems.e only w .. lem is first admit you have one properly define it, properly describe it, gather the information and admit to the reality. there is no way anybody can deny we have a problem worldwide in terms of extremism and violence. we witness it just a few hours ago on a practice field for a charity baseball event.
and let me acknowledge first of all, our prayers are with those that dems, congressman scalise,e staff members in the two membert at the capitol hill security detail were wounded and even having been learned it, and they continued to return fire and prevent any far greater tragedy. the appreciation we owe to the men and women in public safety, that every day they step out of the threshold of their door, they are literally putting their lives on the line.line it was demonstrated again this morning. so i appreciate anybody who's going to step up to the plate, defend us, defend our freedom,r, and protect public safety, but also stand up and tell the truth and describe reality in a world
that is very, very dangerous, in a world that doesn't want to fear the truth and reality. previous hearings on the subject talks about the way radical islam is terrorists are usingus social media, particularly he says has become incredibly about poisoning the minds of young people around the world who engage in these acts of terror and depravity.wh we've held hearings on trying to understand the motives, what motivates this? what are they trying to accomplish? we have learned in america what has been incredibly importantt throughout our history, we are a nation of immigrants. we welcome them. they made this nation great. but what has made this nation great as people come to this country embracing the atm promise of america, not
rejecting their past culture. we asked them to accept constitutional law and take advantage of this wonder and marvel in the american economy.n we learn how important it is for as in government and our public safety officials to possibly engage in communities to makesu sure they will assimilate. it hasn't completely worked. we've probably done a better job because we witness recently in the assimilation has not been as good, but is far from perfect in america and we'll talk about that. i just want to say again, i appreciate the courage of our witnesses and willingness to step up to the plate and just
employ everybody to have an open mind. we need to understand the truth, the reality if we have any hope of solving this problem. we are a generation who struggled at leaves. we've got to get to the point where people can feel free and safe to go this in the morning on a baseball field or walk the street or raise their family. if what we are trying to accomplish. it's not going to be easy, but the only way we'll do it us isin if we have the courage to face these truths in the courage to tell them. thanks for having the couragese and without a turnover to senator mccaskill. i do ask to have my written statement entered into the record. >> i think all of us are waiting to exhale until we learn more details about our colleague and
our staff members and our police officers. but make no mistake about it, what we saw this morning was evil and i hope that this hearing doesn't stray from the fact we should be focusing on the evil. we should be focusing on violence. we should be focusing on enforcing our criminal laws against evil and violent. we should be focusing on those people who twist and distort any religion, be it muslim or christianity or buddhism, anyone
who twists and distorts that religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule. it is not the rule. we should not focus on religion and the freedom our countryembrc embraces. our country was founded on many important promises. paramount among those premises with the freedom of religion. the earliest americans for myic native american came here because they were fleeing from persecution based on their persecution. our freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,
define us as a nation and no evil should never be allowed to distort those premises. and i'm hoping, although i'm worried honestly that this hearing will underline that. i'm concerned the president's budget proposal has taken its eye off the ball in terms of firefight against this evil vioc extremism and the violence that it foments. i am worried that it/homeland counterterrorism measures like the viper team that provided an extra layer of security at our airports. it also calls for the complete elimination reimbursement
program which provides financial assistance to localcies to law-enforcement agencies to help secure our airports. it would reduce the grant program by more than 50%, all soft targets for these evil criminals. the urban area security grantint initiative and was cut by $150 million. the president's proposal would zero out coordinated terrorist attack grant programs, which are so essential as we face violence, evil criminals. while it is critical we enhanced our social security line first meant that the resources they need to keep it safe, we also have to improve our efforts to stop americans from being radicalized. our danger or at least today has not been for those who slip into the country i noticed orders try
to illegally cross our borders, who are seeking refuge in a crisis -- a humanitarian crisis. that's not where the dangersth come from. it is come from people who are americans or people who are legally in this country who have been radicalized. we face from threats of a variety of sources on radicalization including white supremacist, ecoterrorist, i says, al qaeda sympathizers. there's a long list. the sunni and violent extremism appears to be focused on the witness is. it's absolutely vital that any effort our government takes to counter violent extremism is done in partnership and in full engagement of the peaceloving muslim community. in order to combat dice is another extremist propaganda, wi must have a healthy dialogue with muslim and other community
leaders to ensure resources are available to family and friends who are concerned about loved ones who have been contract did to extreme rhetoric. unfortunately, some of the rhetoric we hear today is at odds with this approach and in conflict with the principles of value in most importantly makes the facets of america less safe. we need to spend more time working on these issues and working with the majority of muslims both in this country and around the world who are peaceful and law-abiding. we are lucky to have michael leiter testified that former director of the national counterterrorism center during the bush administration. is that leiter or leiter? >> leiter. >> has extensive knowledge and expertise to go after the people trying to do us harm. i'm eager to hear his analysiss of the lessons we can learn from the recent attacks in the u.k.
and elsewhere. i'd appreciate his thoughts andd i'm interested in recommendations to bolster the nation's safety and resilience without compromising our constitutional principles. we can do better to combat and prevent radicalism and extremism as long as we work together under the umbrella of those important protections. thank you, mr. chairman. >> someone or mccaskill, it is the tradition of this committee to swear and witnesses. if you'll stand and raise yourur right hand. do you swear the testimony you will give before the will be the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? be seated. our first witness is ms. ayaan hirsi ali. ms. ali was born in somalia. she served on the parliament in 2004 and rather short film.
submission. after the film was released, the director was assassinated. ayaan hirsi ali is the author of books, political islamist ideology and movement toe curren congress. a research fellow at the hoover institution follow up the ayaan hirsi ali foundation. ms. ali.r >> chairman, ranking member, mccaskill, babies and gentlemen, i want to join you in condemning the violence this morning and i wish the congressmen a swift recovery.pp thank you for the opportunity to talk about the steps engaging our constitution, freedom. clearly not all muslims posed, but some do.
how can we tell the difference? we can by understanding the nature of islam. islam is a religion in part apolitical military doctrine. a political doctrine consists of a world -- a system of laws and a moral code that is totally incompatible with our constitution and our way of life. in 2017, 13 major governmentthap that applied islamic law or sharia. saudi arabia and iran. as we sit here, we are also fighting a world entity that goes by the name of the islamic state of iraq and syria or a says. isis implements sharia in muslim extreme. the islamic law by practicing these places negate the secular law and demand submission to the hoover without question.
women are subordinate to men and are denied such basic rights as owning their own body for sexuality. they face discrimination in marriage in custody. but dems must produce four witnesses and if they don't, then they are stoned to death. religious minorities are subject to a second class citizen.pe does the death penalty for. no impartial courts. there is no rule of law.ed not all muslims, not even thoset who live here. i called those who do medinah muslims because they invoke mohammed, the founder of islam. i believe the vast majority of muslims accentuate the spiritual
aspects of islam. i called the mental muslims because they cite mohammed and his legacy for america. the sad subjects like austria who the military aspects of iran. i called and the reformers. they are different because they stand up by open the project in sharia. most muslims live in secular states where states have some form of sharia. there are millions of muslims today who live at considerable minorities in non-muslimin societies like ours. the medinah muslims are not satisfied with the status quo. the goal is to transform all muslim majority countries and to islamic theocracy than to use muslim immigrants, minorities as a beachhead to transform non-muslim societies, even free
ones such as the last. they have a long time horizonim and already has. medinah muslims use a combination of source hot withth the dissemination of ideology.hy in theory, a call to islam consists of privatizing. it is the process of radical indoctrination.at dawa advocates whose missionary efforts, education and cultural activities. they target the individual, the family, the education system and the broader economic society. it is totalitarian that communism and fascism, but different because it is shrouded in religion. this class by the medinaha acro muslims by all means has led to
weak and failed states from civil wars to the exit is for people to their homes in freefr societies to device segments and the break, social cohesion. we must stop not only the violent enmity is like i says, al qaeda, vocal or rom but also dismantle the networks of dawa. above all, we need to challenge the tentacles of sharia law. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you companies ali. our next witness is ms. asura nomani. ms. nomani is the author of standing alone an american woman's struggle for the soul of islam. she also has led the project come a student faculty investigation and the murder of her friend, danny pearl was d executed by members of al qaeda. ms. nomani. >> thank you so much chairmanch johnson, vice chairman paschal
and senators for this invitation to be here today. our hearts are gripped with the horror of this morning's shooting. i feel empathy and compassion for you because this day takes me back to a day 15 years ago when i felt the same group enough my heart. i learned that day that my colleague and friend comingend danny pearl from "the wall street journal" had been kidnapped. we learned in the weeks that followed he had been kidnapped by militants and it was 15 years ago almost to this day that we learned that he was buried in a plot outside of karachi, his body cut into pieces by the menl who believed that their interpretation of my faith
justified this brutal murder. i sit before you because on that day i developed a passion that i would expect you all will also feel committed to after you learn the intentions, motivations this morning. i lost a friend. on that day, i made it my duty as a muslim to stand up against the ideology of extremist islam that motivated the men that took my friend from this earth. there was one value that connected the 27 men involved in danny's kidnapping and murder. that was the date they had all absorbed the evangelism but didn't ideologicalcal in interpretation that is that the
nature ayaan is speaking about. this is not the islam that my parents taught me. as for my parents taught me that made this morning to stand full shoulder to shoulder with my father in up in my hands and pray for peace of mind for everyone in this world. what senator mccaskill talks about is really important. we must make this distinction and i think at the same time, that means we are clear that senator johnson is talking about relating to the enemies we face. the ideology of islamism for political islam contradicts the constitutional values of the country. the elements of islamism or political islam are very clear it demands that we have political governance according
to the laws of sharia or to islamic law.ion with t those standards are in complete contradiction to the laws of our country. an organization whose meeting ir attended last summer, behind the speakers was a flag for the islamic state. in michigan, a man is preaching to advocate for child marriages in the name of islam. in northern virginia, and a mom just preached that it is okay to cut the of girls because they leads to the ability to keep hypersexuality from expressing itself in the world.
what is it we must do? we must have moral courage and intellectual courage. they must absolutely separateus the many muslims who don't't practice from those who do and do not way, did actively have tt protect muslims and be able to differentiate extremism from the large swaths of faith others back practice will be realized. if we marginalized thetion mus extremists. we as a nation must be commended to shut down the ideology oflamm islamism, just as we defeated fascism, just as we defeated communism. the ideology of islamism denies us the right of men and women to sit in a room together as we are sending today.
the right to go to a concert and cause them dangerous women. it denies the woman like myself the right to sit in a bakery in bangladesh without being separated and killed. we have to understand that the future of our world depends on our clear thinking and their wisdom. i came here with fear in my heart because we also face a network that i called the owner brigade that wants to silence this conversation. ayaan and i are under attack constantly. between us i don't know how many death threats we face. we sit before you with our backs to both our friends and enemies because it is our duty. it is our duty to stand up to the humanity in which we believe.r when my mother was beside me, she took my hand and she said,
do this for humanity, step forward for humanity. i urge all of you to remain committed to the values in which we believe in the freedom and the duty of this world we want to see if the next generation inherit. thank you so much. >> thank you, ms. nomani. our next witness is john lenczowski. pretty close? dr. lenczowski savanna president of considerable politics, graduate school of international affairs. dr. lenczowski served at the state department from 1981 to 1983 and then with the national security council from 1983 toir 1987 for he was the director of european and soviet affairs and president reagan's soviet affairs advisory. dr. lenczowski. >> ranking minority member and members of the committee.
i am honored to have the chance to discuss how to protect ourselves against radical g hot as some -- jihadism. this is like trying to eradicate mosquitoes by inviting your friends for a garden party arming them with shotguns and shooting mosquitoes all get a afternoon.ew you get a few. the problem is the garden has it huddled, which is spawning new mosquitoes, not just terroristss but jihadism dedicated to thewow caliphate worldwide aired this is not a military problem. it is a political propaganda ideological, culture and religious doctrine problem.em to solve it necessitates fighting a war of ideas and thes problem is we have virtually no ideological warriors in this war.
we have a precedent in the cold war eliminated the sources of cold war tension, changing the core of the soviet system and so we conducted in a geological war episodically for some four decades. this consisted of the use of the truth to counter soviet propaganda, undermining the ideology is the basis of soviet legitimacy and the inhumanity of communist rule, offering thehe peoples of the soviet empire a positive alternative, freedom, democracy and hope for a better life is supporting resistance forces within the empire.ils th that tree until the collapse of the communist party and the entire soviet system. a key indicator of the victory with the concession by the chief party ideologists, alexander jacob and his comment that the ideology and system that produced were evil.
we must also fight the ideological core. jihadism differs from moderate islam in so far that it seeks ti expedite ordinary missionary activity by conducting jihad. separate enclaves that run according to sharia and pulled the native political demographic conquest. modern totalitarian islamism, which incorporates marxist-leninist political strategy forms the basis of the recruitment of both terrorists and resettlement jihadism. it depends on generating hatred against the infidel principally through immoral attack against colonialism, dynamism and u.s. hegemony and against the west moral degradation.
defeating this ideology requiree an ideological counterattack based on superior moral precepts. above all, this requires telling the truth and ending self-censorship about radical islamism and an information campaign exposing the ideology,o exposing jihadism strategy, sharia and the crimes of radical islamist regimes. it then requires an attack on the ideology and its manipulation and i can discuss later on a number of different elements of what that would look like. finally, it requires offering a positive alternative, including an appeal to conscience in the promotion of human rights. regrettably, our government is intellectually unprepared to do all this. we no longer have centers within our government that promote excellence, ideological warfare.
so, we should resurrect a new version of the u.s. information agency. i would call it the u.s. public diplomacy agency, located within the state department should contain all the offices with influence over public opinion. they would include the human rights bureau, a strengthened version the current global engagement center to counter jihadist propaganda, office of foreign opinion research, a pair of education, culture and ideas with a special office of religious affairs. the voice of america, which should be transferred to this agency from the bpg and an office for the counterintelligence protection of u.s. public diplomacy programs. the cia must resurrect serious covert political influence capabilities, including thewn funding of all foreign -- running the ball finds that the
media and the ability to support voice is a politically moderate islam in their efforts to discredit jihadism. our defense department is to strengthen its military support operations and the department of homeland security, the state department, fbi and local law enforcement needs significantly improved capabilities tobiliti distinguish between ordinary muslims who want their religion to be a religion and not a radical secular ideological program to distinguish those people from jihadist and when it comes to admit the united statew or return to cooperate in the struggle against jihadism. thank you. >> thank you repressor, or doctor. our final witness is mr. michael leiter. mr. leiter served as president of guido's defense. previously served as director of the national counterterrorism center from 272,011 for
president george w. bush andor president obama. mr. leiter of hispanic chairman john santamaria to reagan member cosco, thank you for having me.h i was simply add my thoughts and prayers to those injured and the families affected this morning. before directly addressing today's topic i want to offer to quick opening points. first, i am not going to address all forms today because that's not the committee asked for. but i don't want that to be read as the sunni inspired terrorism is the only threat we face. shia terrorism, other political terrorism, all of that threat the globe and found solutions to address sunni inspired terrorism by the same but also distinctions. the second caveat is although i'm going to focus and we are focusing on the ideological am x aspects, i'm i am supportive of a balanced approach to terrorism.
but close allies and a logical component. if we do one of those, we pretty much guarantee ourselves failure in a larger battle. as this committee knows well and ultimately recruitment of violence. these are inherently broad to these including all parts of the community, rehabilitation, manyd pieces. in in my view, and a basic duties must be based on a very rigorour nsc said a factual and truthful analysis radicalization and thankfully in 2001, widely available within the u.s. intelligence community from credible partners overseas and academic institutions.
when implemented properly, there is no doubt in my mind this cd programming produces radicalization of violence. we shouldn't be surprised by that. it works an anti-drug activity, anti-gang activity and it can work in this context as well. studies from duke university of massachusetts, the netherlands, kenya, germany come the u.k. all back this up. now, in my view and i takeke significant blame for this having been the director of the national counterterrorism center under bush and obama, since 9/11, the u.s. programs have been a marginal effectiveness. and i am happy. i hope we have more. i agree with much of what dr. lenczowski said about the poor resourcing and not the focus on many of these programs domestically and internationally for the united states. again, i think we have some very good programs.
i would highlight george lam, partnership of dhs, good people doing good work for small people of this analyses. the 2016 federal drug demandducn reduction programs received $15 billion, 1.5 billion of god was for prevention activities. the elements of dhs office of community partnerships has alld of $10 billion in 2016 grant funded. if we think this is a serious problem, we need a seriousproblm solution. right now, we do not have that. in designing programs, we have to be very, very careful in my view not to alienate the very same communities on which we rely. the ideology of sunni violent extremism is of course part ofon
the problem and it must be inconsistent with the first amendment address. at the same time, we must not, i can't stress this enough, conflate a violent ideology with mainstream muslim believes. to do so as not only factually wrong, but deeply there's animal feed directly with us versus ite them. the e pluribus unum. it is harmful to equate core concepts that are not inherently violent with extremist interpretations of these principles. for example, the muslim tradition of dawa or proselytization which is not dissimilar to similar traditions of christianity elsewhere is not, i repeat is not equivalent to the islamist interpretation of this term. similarly, the muslims honoringo of sharia is not inherently
intentioned but in a constitutional democracies any more than it would be for christians or who seek to honor their religious traditions while still complying civil authority. so while what a successful counterterrorism program with a robust cde program look like? when a size that can act aggressively overseas in disrupting both physical and as you mentioned, mr. chairman, sacrosanct savings. second, federal law enforcement must work with local officials to share the heavy burden of investigation and in doing so, those officials must understand islam in all its diversity said they may distinguish between peaceful adherents in violence extremists. defensive measures must be in a place and we must have robust strategy for a country of almost 300 million that would include education programs for state and local officials on islam than in
conjunction with local muslim communities, traditional muslim organization with every other religion we have in the united states with those muslimfost communities. fostering engagement with the technology community and muslim -- muslim organizationse to enable effective in geo-ideological engagement for the u.s. government cannot and should not engage. the russian programs -month-old by anti-gang in antidrug programs to china youth away from extremism and violence, leveraging all elements of u.s. and local governments to ensure leadership is far beyond law enforcement officials. and just like in manufacturing, fully developed metrics to make sure where we put our money they are dollars well spent. there are a number of programs as ranking member mccaskill said they were risk both domestically and overseas for the president's budget and ind look forward to answering mouser
i look forward to working with the committee on this and other issues which face us on violent extremism of all strokes.st >> thank you, mr. lenczowski. i did want to in my opening statement quote, popper from 1945. let me read the full quote into the record. again, written in 1945. unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.r if we extend unlimited tolerance even to those intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a n tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, it will be destroyed. mr. leiter, in your testimony he said if we think this is a serious problem, we need a serious solution. that's the point of this hearing.ea do you think this is a seriousll problem? "the wall street journal" article written by ms. ali
describing dawa versus jihad. you describe dawa is pretty benign. but the christian missionaries, you are trying to promote, evangelize the religion, are you evangelizing the moderate nonviolent form, or are you evangelizing the islamic terrorist for them? do you deny the reality that there are elements, that there are potentially charitable organizations raising money and funneling those dollars intopo >>tentially islamic terrorist groups? >> mr. chairman, i spent four years of my life working for a democratic president trying to keep the american people safe from violent islamic extremism. so any suggestion, even in your question but i somehow denied that. >> okay, great.ly >> i honestly wasn't trying to challenge you. you're minimizing --
>> mr. chairman, there are undoubtedly organizations to clothe themselves cannot wrap wrapped themselves in the path of religion who are pursuing violence means. we have to see through that. one of the greatest challenges and other officials to make that distinction between those organizations who are pursuing legitimate charitable means in the names of any religion versus those that are pursuing illegal and dangerous violence. >> truthfully i was not trying to challenge in any way shape or form. i truly expect what you've done in the past. i think what i'm hearing is not disagreement here between the witnesses, although it might be set up like there may be. is there anything you heard insr testimony from our two female witnesses that you disagree with? >> first of all, much of the work i greatly respect andor
rather than try to get an overview or characterize all of their statements, there areha things that the witnesses have ridden with which i disagree. what i heard mostly today, i would largely agree with. i don't agree with a few small things. contrary to the good doctor, ioc don't think there has been at least in my experienceelf self-censorship within the u.s. government talking about this. i in fact tripled the resources at the national counterterrorism center to study the ideological aspects of this so we could train state and local officials on islam. there was no issue about saying this. we knew there were ideological drivers of this and people have to understand that. we started a program to train community groups on understanding islam. we started a program that helpsl train muslim communities on understanding what was available to their sons and daughters that
might be radicalizing material on the internet. we do not at all ignore it. i do agree with the good dr. as i said. the u.s. government policy and budgetary priority is not always aligned with that. i don't think that was trying to bury our head in the sand about what the problems were. >> ms. nomani, can you just kind of respond? audio mac >> -- i've been waiting for this hearing for 15 years because we have been unable to have a conversation about ideology and terrorism when it comes to islam. i remember a moment when i went to the state department several years ago and the public diplomacy officials in the west to talk about with strategies can be put into place. i said to her very simply, it is
about the ideology. it is about the ideology that you know very well is put out into the world by government like iran, qatar, saudi arabia and the proxies like the muslim brotherhood. i was told that the many we can have this conversation about ideology. our freedom of religion will not allow us to have that conversation in a public space. but what i push back on and what i am so happy to see you discussed today is the fact that the ideology that is a problem is one that violates u.s. constitutional law. it is one that wants to see the overthrow of this democracy and wants to cs has been in into separate segregated spaces with rights that are not equal to men.to. so this is a reality. i have with me a book that we
thought that the medina market in herndon, virginia, just off of route seven, a road that is called wahhabi corridor because off of route seven are the mosques, the think tanks, the book stories that put this ideology out to our community. and in the scope of law, islamic law, sharia, that is a problem of your lando attack, it tellsla us should be killed. it tells us the reason why wewe should wage jihad on america and the rest of the world. this is not the islam my parents taught me that this is aappy t reality. i'm so happy we're finallyre confronting the problem. >> would you just like to respond? >> yes.
i think it's not so much a question of disagreements, but maybe a question of perspectives. what i would like to do is start with what we agree on all of us here on the panel and i hope alw of you and where we all agree is that muslims are not synonymous with terrorism or repression of misogyny or any of that. so i'd like to start by making this distinction between islam as a set of beliefs, as a doctrine, as a tradition, as a civilization on one hand and the human being says muslims. if you take islam and studied the library school books on islam and what it boils down to is that that is part of religion
and spiritual and has a very rich history of spirituality. but it also has a military political component. there are some muslims who essentially the spiritual but your mother holding your hand today and the way your parents raised you, who tells you that the way they see the spiritual w component of their religion is peaceful and they wish no one else any harm. if they engage in evangelization or engage in dawa, that is only about spreading that peace and goodness and wellness. but there are other groups and that is why we are having thisis conversation. what we are dealing with this the other group were taken out of the historical civilizational context of islam is the political and military. the prophet mohammed is the founder of islam. they invoke the quran, they
invoke scripture. the question is does the prophet mohammed support that do not muslims, those who exaggerate the policies or does he supporto those who accentuate the spirituality. when he first founded the religion, it is all about religion and spirituality. later after immigration, it's all about policies. it's about military. he has militias, he wages wars. he develops a new law and these men in the 21st century were organizing themselves as nongovernmental organizations like the muslim brotherhood and the muslim brotherhood is just one entity or a theocracy like saudi arabia, like iran, so that is why i think it is extremely important that we make this distinction. we have problems with those
muslims and only those muslims who accentuate the political and military doctrine of iran. we've been focusing a great deal as we should. i agree with you, as we've been focusing on those who use violence and jihad, terrorism, we have it paid as much attention to what you call the puddles, the breeding places,, those people who get into the hearts and minds of people and turn them towards the idea that it's okay, that it's okay to kill apostates, that it's okay to pursue a worldview of a society that is based on a seven centuries fall. that i think to begin with we should have the clarification
and i want to say i came and accepted your conversation tootk talk about only that group, not to vilify or stigmatize thosee muslims who accentuate their spirituality. >> i appreciate that and i and i appreciate the attempt, would we agree on and really what is the truth and what is reality. is not challenging. just trying to find out where the areas of agreement? what do we disagree on so we can figure out the reality because the only way we are trying to address what you've been working so tirelessly to address, to prevent his acknowledging those realities. >> completely understand. >> senator mccaskill. >> i think we all agree that extreme ideology as a recruitment for violence is a important that we must focus on it and we must fight it. but we have to do that within our constitutional parameters. for example, we can ban not
book. it is repugnant as bad is, we can't ban it in the united states of america. it's not how we roll and we have to fight it with the appropriate tools of our government and civil laws. as we fight it, this really matters and it's important to remain factual. dr. lenczowski, in your prepared testimony, you've discussed the islam enclaves. you have broad experience working with international allies and partners and i know you travel extensively and work arm in arm with both your counterparts in these european countries in the police in these european countries. is that factual? are there no go zones?
>> in my experience in denmark, brussels, the united kingdom, germany, france, having worked at the counterterrorism blog first and officials, i never saw anything remotely resembling a no go zone.. >> and then the written testimony, by the way, don't lenczowski i would like to see the citations of 140 cases because the one you cite specifically i believe mr. leiter come you are a u.s. attorney annette looked at this case. you say specifically a man was acquitted for serially his wifes and therefore subject to server your law. -- sharia law. that is packed by false.e. you familiar with that case?ros >> ibm. the case arose an individual was seeking for his wife was seeking a restraining order against her husband for sexual abuse in the new jersey state trial court
refused to find mens rea criminal intent based on the husband's believe that the contract could not have allowed him to do what he did. the first round of appeals in the new jersey next level of court. i was also a clerk of the supreme court for justice breyer and i believed it would be called of early a >> down for the trial court, saying they deeply misunderstood u.s. constitutional law in new jersey the end that there was no way in which this has been would be permitted under any interpretation of u.s. law to gt forward. lenczowski the case you --i >> to case you cited in missouri, i know the prosecutor in that case. this is a case where a family member abused a child over what they were wearing.
in this instance, it was a head covering, but it could've been a short skirt, a bear may drift. the family member pulled this child out of the school and physically assaulted the childd and was arrested on a felony of child abuse. i fail to see how that is an encroachment in the cases still pending, by the way. >> i'm not completely familiar with that case. i didn't write about it.t i acknowledge, by the way, senator that particular case in new jersey was reversed on appeal. >> facts matter, sir.ct he was never acquitted of anything. >> perhaps i used the wrong language there. the judge made a judgment based
on sharia that it should never have gotten as far as it did. >> i can tell you having done domestic violence cases for many years and having fought in thean legislature, believe it or not in this country, and we as a state legislator i thought to make sure men could not rape to their wives. up until 1995 men could rape their wives in the state where i live. i think that this notion -- mr. leiter, do you believe sharia law is slowly becoming the law of the land in this country? >> i think it is a deeplyy mistaken factual believe that religious laws can be the basis for contracts between people if they choose to. but ultimately, the u.s. court
system has a very, very well developed judicial theory of when those religious agreements, those religious contracts between two individuals can or cannot be honored in federal courts. that is well-established and i see no signs, no credible signs that sharia law poses even the most minute risk to the u.s. constitutional principles in u.s. law. >> mr. leiter, could you briefly addressed the resource issue ass it relates to the president's budget and what that will do to her cbe efforts in this country as we do exactly what these witnesses want us to do and that is combat the ideology of recruiting people to violence. talk about what we can do, whata we can actually do to counter this important problem. >> senator, let me start by making this is bipartisan in my criticism as they can. democrats and republicans before the senate has failed to adequately resource theset
issues. it is not just the president'src budget on this front. i do believe that in terms of what the main threats are we are facing today, largely low technology attacks and scattered rays through internet radicalization, allah, london paris and the like, the president's budget does real violence to some of those, specially for this committee. potential cuts in funding to the coast guard for port security, for rail transit. these are real issues. these are places that need to be defended. they have not inadequately defended and they must be. to the benefit, some of the funding of the fbi's counterterrorism is a good thing. so there's not all that. some of the funding and commissioner o'neill in new york is very vocal as is las vegas. there is real fast in cuts in funding in other programs that have been critical in situations
like orlando, boston, preparing people to respond. last but not least, i know this is not directly in this committee's purview, but it is interconnect did, which is the international aspect. i am deeply, deeply troubled by the proposed cuts, which are critical to the internationalogt cbe programs and we have to seriously regard those as secretary manda said soo eloquently said it just means he has to buy more bullets and you can't buy enough bullets. in those regards, the president's budget is deeply problematic. >> senator hassan. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member mccaskill. and what to start by adding my thoughts and prayers to those who were injured following this morning's horrific shooting and i want to thank the men and
women of the capitol police for the security they provide the yugo safe and every day in all the time under way to risk their lives for the mission of keeping them safe. i am very grateful to them as i am to all law-enforcement and first responders. with that said, i want to turn to broaden the discussion a little bit, mr. leiter with you about the issue of homegrown extremism and terrorism. in your view, how can thean department of homeland securityy work to prevent americans from being radicalized whatever the ideology is that inspires them to be radicalized to the point they are willing to carry out violence. are we going to be able to arrest our way out of the threat of homegrown terrorism or are we going to have to build partnerships? you address some of the issues about resources, but what resources to rename kabila do
that? >> there's no doubt we can't arrest our way out of it. donald rumsfeld noticed that anything a snowflake where he said the question is not how many we are killing in a reproducing more than we are killing. is that a different situation but the same challenge. arresting those that have gone beyond a certain level of extremism for his violence is a critical part of that. the best way we are going to be able to be arrested is the key partnerships, dusty partnerships with communities. now, the fbi is good at that and has a global and national presence, which is probably unmatched, but the department of homeland security plays a key, key role because they are notol all in law-enforcement. .. with badges and guns, so from my perspective the department of homeland security can play several roles. they are responsible for the
infrastructure whether it is oil and gas pipelines, ports. second, they have to be on the frontlines of that engagement, and it isn't just people walking around saying i am here to help, it is engaging and also building those relationships looking over building those relationships between government and ngos and technology -- there are things the u.s. government, a., cannot say as matter ofer constitutional law and, b., doesn't have any credible. the dhs can play a key role in building partnerships. last but not least, dhs and the fbi have to remain at the center
of the sharing of information and not just sharing information but sharing investigative leads with state and local law enforcement so we never have a situation like boston where something falls below the threshold for the fbi but the cambridge or boston police department might choose to pursue it. they have to make sure the police understand thethe co constitutional limitations and understand the ideologicalling a suspects and make distinctions between those who are peacefulul muslims and those who are radicals. >> thank you, yield my time. >> senator harris. >> thank you. i join with senator expressing my prayers and best wishes for our colleagues and the folksks that were attacked this morning
and also thanks to the first responders and their capitol police who are so incrediblyincb courageous and are sacrificing so much to protect other people. so my prayers to their families as well. this morning actually the senator and i were both at a prayer breakfast, at the senate prayer breakfast, and it's a wonderful time when we get together in a bipartisan way. only senators in the room. to share our faith and our path not only in the gods we worship but in each other, and it was poignant this morning and there was actually a presentation by senator cassidy, our colleague from across the aisle from me, but from louisiana, and what i took away from what he shared this morning was something i think we all agree on, which there are certain universal truths.ch
there are certain things that in spite of what might appear to bs differences among men and womenw certain things -- most of the thing that we share that bind us, that we have in common. we have so much more in common than what separates us and i think when we are facing challenges, it is important for leaders to emphasize the things we share in common, and unify us, understanding they are just universal truths. so, with that spirit, i have several questions but i'd like to talk with you, mr. leiter, about your thoughts that you have touched on this morning about what can be done to improve the situation where work needs to be done, and if we cann talk about it also in the context of the dhs budget. we are obviously a committee that has oversight on that issue.
you mentioned the george selim program as being a good one at dhs. can you tell it what makes it good? >> i think what makes it good are probably three things. one, you have someone who in running it is deeply experienced in the u.s. government and understands islam. i'm sure there are many people who understand islam more and many disagree with his view of islam but he is muslim and he is thoughtful and that's difficult to find in the u.s. government. the number of senior officials who understand islam is painfully low. so, that's the first thing. the second thing is i think he understands that there is only so much government can do and the u.s. government seems to lack credibility speaking about any religion, but especially islam.li
there's a lack of understanding. and in doing that, the offices sought not to make official dhs pronouncements but instead use funding and grant money to enable those people who are doing good work away from washington, dc. i think those are probably the third piece i would say is they're innovative in focusing on areas which are nontraditional counterterrorism drivers who normally does counterterrorism, law enforcement, order people. they have focus more on educationom programs, the pierce-to-peer program whichch partners with educational institutionsment they have worked closely with a variety of organizations. immigrant rights organizations, who don't show up with the badge and the gun as investigators. walt we have season overseas in places like the united kingdom
and the netherlands their counterterrorism organizations work the best when hey have a little arm's length, not working independently but arm's length from the attorney generals of the world because they would otherwise become aned adversaril relationship the whom you're trying to partner. >> is -- >> viper is a rapid response team which shows up for transit programs when there's a threat. i believe previously there have been roughly 31 viper teams round the country. the president's budget cuts that to eight. when well saw threats in the united states, if we hadth something like the attack inth london, we would immediately activate the viper teams and they would show up around the bart stations with long guns -- >> like the indent in california, san bernardino. >> absolutely. critical response teams. another element which is
separate from viper but equally important, many of the interagency programs for training before an attack, would love to stop every attack. we're not going to stop every attack.g the question is how to optimize the response and we have done nat joint programs between fema, the fbi, and national counterterrorism center and included hospitals in the area, telecommunications providers, often muslim organizations so you can both respond, save people who are injured, andus immediately start engaging the community. that was effective in orlando and boston and cutting those funds would just be tragic. >> you have said it but as an expert, i take it you're recommending to our committee we fully fund the programs in the effort to combat terrorism in our country. >> i think those programs, in light of the threat we face from isis, are only more important than hey have been. >> can you unpack the possibility of collaborationat
with silicon valley and the technology industry? i will carry that back to california with me. >> i spent three years workingar in silicon valley as well, so i now have no economic interest in this, but what we started doing in 2009-2010, 2011, was this idea of the government can't speak authoritatively on this but there are many important muslim ngos who wanted underunds how to stop radicalization and fight violent force but didn't know how to get out the message, and anwar al-aulaqi were more able to use those.s it took google and the like to talk about how to get a search. i think that's critical that technology companies between 2009, 2011 when i left, and
today, we are in a even more problematic posture, and i say that for at least two reasons. one, the threat -- because terrorist use of the internetca has become vastly more effective, as the chairman said. isis knows how to get the message out using music and communications in a way that al qaeda never did. the threat is greater. second texas tension between the u.s. government and the valley, technology companies, is higher than it was in 2010-2011 because of a variety of issues, beginning with edward snowden. so finding that partnership will be more rick but it's critical, and i think prime minister may at the g 7 raised the issues but it's issues of reporting extremist content online, actively take it down, using algorithms to do it automatically and reporting that to at the fbi and law enforcement and an even harder nut to crack is the use of
end-to-end encringes, which will increasingly prohibit or keep u.s. law enforcement officials, not just working on terrorism, from accessing communications in a way they have become very accustomed over the past second six decades. >> thank you. >> senator mccaskill is talking about first amendments rights, freedom of religious, freedom of speech which we value, but we do within those rights been things like child pornography and incorrect violence. y is that line? >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, we are so grateful. we have two capitol policemen near us today and we're so grateful for everything that you do. not only defending us personally but the institution of this government, and after an attack like today, we understand and
brings in sharp focus or gratitude.and brrtfocus so i want to think the two who are present today and also want to say my hearts and prayers good out to all of those who were wounded and injured.. an attack against them is an attack against our entire country, and i don't think there's any doubt about it. mr. leiter, a spent 0 lot of time with the counter-ism folks. it's one of toughest nuts to crack. how do we participate in communities that bills relationships and prevent radicalization. don't think anyone here would disagree we know the formula, but we need resources to do it and we need education and training to do it. you already for senator harris, think, drew on some of your experiences on how things have changed. need to understand your
experience between 2007 and then '11 and going forward holm do you see the threat is changing g and where have we seen best practices in attacking that threat? >> the threat has changed, and i'm still on the advisory board for nctc and always happy at the end of my briefings i can walk out and good home and not stick around and have to address them all. the threat is significantly more challenging than i saw between 2002-1 -- 2007-11 with one exception. we were more worried about large are scale attack wes don't face in the same manner today. were worried about ten planes blowing up over the atlantic and bug attack -- big attacks.th that's that's good news. the bad news is the scale of radicalization is occurring, the pace at which it is occurring, the independence with which it is occurring so you don't
necessarily see the same communications between domestic elements and international elements, which were so important for us, detect them, and all those ways the threat is significantly worse even if the lookly hood of a large-scale attack is lower than in 2011. now, where have i seen success in combating this? i've seen a lot of success in the united states come out of this. let's pat ourselves on the back just a little bit. we have done remarkably well. any moment you say that, you have to in the same breath recognize the tragedies we have experienced in the united states, whether it's orlando or san bernardino and i never mean to make like of that. but we have generally been pretty effective at disrupting attacks before they occur andco compared to most of our western allies with hey been fairly successful in reducings radicalization rates. in united
kingdom they have a larger problem than we do. same in belgium, same in netherlands and the same in france. we have done that for four reasons. our muslim community is more integrated. our muslim communities are better off economically than theirs are. our muslim traditions tend to come from more moderate strains than some of the more extreme strains of -- in america they have tended to be focused on being americans, overseas eightn -- fights. overall, we have done a pretty good job because we are americans, not because we had great programs to stop it. at reducing that. so where have i seen good programs? we have a lot to learn from the uk prevent program. it's problematic in some ways but communication with
communities was very important. think the dutch as well have thought about this deeply and have a number of socialt about programs. i'm hesitant to look very far at deradicalization programs because those have generally been in states with a set of tools and a lack of constitutional protections that we do not have. it's not to say that some of th saudi programs on deradicalization have not been good but we cannot implement programs like they. >> where the united states. >> the example of mind st. paul and the somali community. they have faced -- the federal, state, local community in part led by the u.s. attorney and in part led by the mayor in minneapolis, did an outstanding job. some of the counter-drug --
counter-gang work in the counter-radicalization work by the l.a.p.d. has been quite good. one small example. right after 9/11 the police athletic league in new york added cricket to its sports. that a good way to make sure communities are not separate el from their governments and feel like they're partners and not adversaries. >> i don't think there's any doubt that one of the first steps in radicalization is isolation, and the need to better understand, we have done a lot of work over the lastd really since the '90s on concepts called community policing, and this is just -- community policing became the model of surge mentality in the military as looking at not fighting nation states as much as fighting rogue groups. i think it's really interesting to think about community policing and those dynamics, and i'm very concerned about the
reduction in resources to local law enforcement where this has to happen on theground, with real resources and real commitment and real training to address not only that, the concerns you would have keeping a community safe and then the critical important role that local law enforcement plays inat counterterrorism. so, i am deeply concerned about the cuts to community policing and the cuts to the anti-terrorism program at dhs. >> i could not agree with you more. state and local police and medical and fire, all these people on the front lines, they have to understand and it if they're not funded to learn it they won't recognize and it we'll have violence after the fact. let me make it a step harder. so much of this is now occurring on the internet. it is not as a general matter occurring in mosques. it is not occurring in public spaces.
it is occurring on the internet for individuals. helping local officials also understand that piece and then address that piece, is something that hare not accustomed to. it's not regular community policing and is critically important. >> those are the kinds of thing -- we have seen for a second when you look at what we have been able to no child pornography which has been an incredible model we could adopt in this fight, that the child pornography work being done by the department of justice is, i think, a great model nor work that can be done here in terms of images and messages that could be shared broadly with ale of law enforcement. >> absolutely. i think they're wildly hailed as a real success story. i note there have been bipartisan bills in the past, as recently as 2015, out of thes senate select committee on intelligence by chairman burr and vice-chairman feinstein, requiring a similar approach and
those have been strongly resisted. it is a complex issue but i think it is one with which the senate will have to tackle. >> thank you. >> senator peters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i'd like to send my thoughts and prayers as well toi all the victims in this morning's shooting and thank the capitol police for what you do each and every day. thank you so much. today's topic is very important one. i've appreciated the testimony of all the witnesses today, and recent tragedies certainly underscore the threat posed by violent extremism, but reading through the written testimonies, i became concerned about a recurrent theme of anti-islamic sentiments and muslim and arab americans serve honorably in military and law enforcement agencies and in the intelligence community and i will say they're an incredibly important part of the social fabric in my state of michigan and they contribute a valuable and necessary
perspective to that is critical for keeping all americans safe. perpetuation of anti-islamic attitudes undermines ourbe collective values and contributes to the undercurrent of seep xenophobia being leveed at ethnic and religious minorities and equally eroding positive community communications and feeds the idea that we're at war with a slam, and we are not and leds to a distorted view of islam, we should try to counter all typesv of -- as nation we should seek fact-based solution that enable to us address all extreme nist threats in an adabtive and integrated matter. my question relays to online radicalization and we have seen
improvees efforts be the u.s. technology companies to identify and shut done user accounts that ex-pows violence, certain there challenges in identifying content that warrants removal and that which constitutes protected speech. these realities and the ubiquity of the internet and our robust civil rights protections suggest we need an incremental focus reform rather than sweeping legislative changes. during your time at the nctc you witnessed first hand the ease in which such groups a isis are able to disseminate content, labeled with the flag and logo and hymns and contract that unmistakely designed to support to efforts of a foreign terrorist organization. if you could make only one recommendation to this committee, what would that it be in terms of confronting the issue of isis propaganda on our
popular social networking sites? >> rebuild trust between the u.s. government and those technology communities, because as much -- we're talking about trust a lot here. trust between the u.s. government and muslim communities. that's critical.ki there is a lack of trust and cooperation between many technology communities in the u.s. government and that is very problematic. i very much understand. company us are doing what they're designed to do, protect can shareholder value, expanding shareholder value, but we are now in a place where -- companies have done a lot, google, facebook, twitter in particular, have done a lot in the past two years to increase cooperation, but it was starting at pretty low point because of the leaks of edward snowedden and that alienation.
we have to get back to a point where there is a cooperative relationship where easily identifiable feature which are rather indisputably associated with political violence of any sort, are rapidly reported to the u.s. government. that's not what happens today. often removed. rare he reported and the u.s. government simply doesn't have the means to monitor the internet. it's impossible so building that trust, rebuilding that trust with people who are really good, smart, well americans in the valley, like the general counsel at facebook, collin stretch, really thoughtful people who want to be of assistance and we have to figure out a way their interests as companies can be protected. the privacy ask civil liberties, that people are innocent who are using these tools are protected, but you still have a rapid methodology for reporting instances like you suggest to law enforcement officials so they can start to find some of
those needles in what is a massive haystack. >> no your recent piece, you mentioned the g7 is a potential vehicle to influence technology companies. to what degree is the threat of online radicalization going to require international approach to what you have just mentioned? >> i do think -- i think the reason that prime minister may brought this up at the g7 is because the uk probably didn't have the market power to drive technology companies' behavior. so, in my view, the first thing to do before we get to g7 is to try to drive this between the u.s. and our companies. otherwise, we will end up with international pressure on our companies which will not be in the seem ven as -- vein is a our normal constitution recall -- constitutional protections him that will see increased pressure
from uk. germany, belgium and france at least on these issues. >> was we're work with companies in the country there is ad in for the toast play a leading role in determining what constitutes extremist content so private companies can uniformly develop new terms of service and potentially identify violationse >> absolutely, senator. that's critical. on he you have the clear definition -- probably easier in child pornography rather than this context. i don't think we can live with the frankfurter-esque, know it when i see it. we have to give anti-semitism rough boundaries and even if it's not capturing 100% of the material, if it captures a bug enough percentage it will be
meaningful assistant in terms of internet radicalization. >> thank you. >> i do want to comment iles fully read the testimony. certainly i saw anti-islamist terror comments in limit saw i antiviolence against women comments. didn't see anti-islamic. think the witnessed were very careful to distinguish that and have been very careful in their verbal testimony to to distinguish between muslims who are practicing their faith peacefully and spiritually as far as political islam. so bending over backwards to make that distinction and hopefully we can agree we're against islamic terrorism that incites and kills. we have four witnesses and all the questions have been directed to mr. leiter, and i appreciate your expertise. >> i'm happy to step out. >> i want you there, bus at i've
been watching this i've seen other witnesses jotting down notes so i'd like to afford those witnesses an opportunity to respond based on your notes to basically the questions and answers so far. i'll start with the doctor. >> thank you, senator. in all of this discussion, we haven't talked about the war of ideas. we haven't talked about the fact that the animating force between radical jihaddism is a moral attack on the united states and the west and our culture, and there are things we can say in response to this. this isn't something that that be -- that can be developed particularly at the local law enforcement level. this has to be done by national leaders who are the
representatives of the american people at the highest levels, where such things as a human rights campaign can be launched. one of the most effective things that is being done right now in the online war is done by very small organization called good of all. it is dedicated to fighting against radical jihaddism in a radicalization prevention operation by standing for the -- and promoting the universal declaration of human rights as an alternative set of ideals, as an idea virus, that can capture the imagination of the new generation of so-called digital natives, the younger generation who are fluent with computers and cell phones and social media and the like.
this has taken -- some of this effort, which is barely funded at all by -- it's privately funded -- has managed to catch fire in different parts of the world. millions of hits in egypt, for example, on the work of thisegyn organization, where egypt wasn't even particularly targeted, but this was the natural course. senator peters mentioned earlier that we are not at war with islam. well, you know, one of the biggest arguments of the jihaddists is that in fact the west is at war with islam, and the sound arguments have to be made that this is not the case and that we are opposing a certain kind of a radical political ideology. i'm also concerned here that too much of the conversation is
focused on terrorism and not on the question of trying to establish a basicallyit totalitarian theocratic form of government. sharia law may not have made the kind of in-roads in american society that it has in other parts of the world, but if you look in europe, -- european countries have plenty of enclaves that have established parallel structures and parallel track for sharia law and there are cases in u.s. courts when it comes to family law,y are muslim man may marry an american woman, they will have children, the man can then make his proper muslim
declaration of divorce, and then sharia family law has triumphed in cases like the where they -- the us can take the children off to saudi arabia and the american mother will never see the children again. i'm not an expert on all of thai particular stuff but i've read enough about it to know that such things exist and that the parallel track for sharia law has established a very good foothold in a number of europeaa countries. i think that there are -- i think that we have to be making it very clear that insofar as there are those who want to try to step a political order in this country, that is at variance with our constitutional freedoms, that this has to be opposed, and it is being done under the shroud of a religion
under the protection of religious freedoms but in fact it is a political movement that is at variance with the constitution of the united states. think we have to be vigilant about this and i think we have to macthe proper moral arguments at the highest levels of the government that can both inspire those who would be radicalized to take a different path, and to alert those -- alert so much of the country about the intentions of certain kinds of people, which is nose just violence but the establishment of an unconstitutional order in this country. >> thank you. >> senator, have a 14-year-old son so i watch a few science fix movies once in a while, and we often times see the monster flailing, and we can take this
approach that we try to address everyplace where the monster hits from san bernardino to orlando to lon -- london, to kabul 0, are go to the heart of what is controlling that monster, and what that is, is an ideology of extremism that everybody on this panel has acknowledged. i have lived on this earth and seen this ideology take root in communities from my home town of morgantown, west virginia to northern virginia to the rest of the world. the heart of this sits in propaganda machines that are churning out this dala of extremism, the propaganda machines are in qatar, in iran in saudi arabia and all of their
proxies. senator mccaskill you said language matters, and as you said are no johnson, we -- senator johnson, we do have rules, contracts in this country, when you incite violence and lead people to violate u.s. laws. amazon sent me overnight this book, "woman in the shade of islam" that outlines how a man can beat his wife.e. it was first delivered to me at my mosque in morgantown, west virginia, by the muslim student association.n. i ideas matter. words matter. we have to get at the heart of the ideas that are then leading people to violence. we are on a conveyor belt. we should not just look at all of these incredible programsor that are dealing with people opposite they become violent. we need to address the ideas that take them on that conveyor
belt to radicalization, and that is why i believe also that our internet companies are failing us, unfortunately, amazon.com brought me this how-to book on how to beat a wife. go daddy in phoenix, arizona, hosts a web site. i invite anyone to go there and use the search engine and look up the word jew and see how many ways they say jewish people should be murdered. the host a web site, the islamic organization based in northern virginia and chicago that wants an islamic state. we're not doing enough to police these bad ideas. these are ideas that are not protected simply by our free speech rights in america. they're ideas that incite violence.
we stand together against white supremacists. we should stand together against muslim supremacists. they exist as all of the members of the panel have agreed upon and unless we go to the heart of the problem, we will continue to be fighting terrorist acts for the generations to come. we have to dismantle the network of these bad ideas that are being put forward into the minds and hearts of young people and we have to do it today. we have to investigate, dismantle and we have to put forward exactly the positive ideas, and the muslim reform movement our ideas are for secular governance, for peace forks human rising, including women's rights, consistent with the u.n. declaration of human rights. we have to put forward the good ideas and shut down and eliminate and take from this
earth these bad ideas either through our relationships with these countries that are putting forward these ideas or by any means that we are able to then stop the promotion of those ideas into the minds of our young people. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i would like to go back to the big picture and listening to mr. leiter, i think you in your capacity working in the government, you have worked very, very hard and i really appreciate that, burt i want to -- but i want to evaluate, if we reflect on how the government has performed, since 9/11, 2000, and hough the western government head performed, my evaluation would be we have failed. we have failed. we have these small programs that if you look at the big picture, look like small drops in the ocean.e
we have sent trillions ofen dollars, we have waged wars since 9/11. islamists, the radicals, whatever name you choose to call them, they have grownwn exponentially. they're sympathizers. the agencies, the money, the funding they get, all of that has grown exponentially since 9/11.one expo if our posture on 9/11/2001, we're going to take the wall to them and stop this eindustrial 2017 we can barely say we have stopped that. it as doubled, tripled, some places quadrupled. we have completely failed to define the enemy and because we have failed to define the enemy, we're flying blind. our ambition cannot be, we're going to develop all of these programs and to stop or to limit
the consequences of the next attack. in 2001 it was, we're going to stand for no attack at all. f if you look at some of the other countries, i'm really, really worried, and i think we don't have the sense of urgency here. worried about these european doneescountries. do you realize france is in a state of emergency since november 13, 2015? germany has closed some mosques. radical right-wing groups in europe are on the rise as they have never been. i have lived in holland for 14 years, and when i came there was a very small radical right-wing group, and today it's the second largest party. in britain, after these attacks in london, the authorities said there were 3,000 people that
were surveilling but 20 other thousand people at large. it is absolutely true that when it comes to mounting large-scale attacks, we have made it very, very difficult for them to do that, and they may not succeed and i hope they don't succeed. but when it comes into entering the minds of human beings and turning them into live missiles against us because they promise them a hereafter that is fantastic, that in that sense we have failed. in that sense, because we don't get to the ideology, we don't want to talk about this problem, we're now seeing thousands and thousands of men and increasingly women who are prepared to use anything as a weapon. their cars, their knives, et cetera. it is very easy for us to say i and convenient anybody say thisg
is happening online but that's not entirely true. it's still happening in the mosque. after reap attack inside brussel, germany, france, mosques have been raided and closed. it's happening in people's living rooms. it is happening in schools. what exactly is happening? it is what i called --hat is c eeadvantagallization carried but my muslims whoing a vehicle sent the military doctrine they're raised with and using that doctrine to turn people's heads and minds away from the principles and -- harris just left but she said what we thought were universal decency, that is what their minds minds d heard are being turn airplane from and being turn to the idea you're doing god's work, allah's work to kill people to maim, repress, and bring do you societies.
it has not happened net united states, hasn't yet happened in ural but done inside africa have been down. country inside middle east have the been brought down and wewe dish know this is the homeland senate committee and we don't spook nor into go but shouldn't walk away this afternoon when we're done with the idea that there is no sense of urgency. there's a great dole of a sense or-underren si between 2001 and today we have failed miserably and it's time to correct our course. >> thank you. by the way, i completely agree we shouldn't be penny wise and found -- pound foolish. the purpose of the hearing is to -- you don't start with resource. you start with the digs definition of the problem. hear a great deal of agreement in terms of what it is. senator danes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member mccaskill, and i
thank you all for testifying. the ideology of violent and radical islamic extreme jim is -- extremism is a challenging topic and takes moral, political, and at times physical courage to speak up. we reflect on and learn from these recent terror attacks, paris, london, manchester, egypt, istanbul, in fact a year ago this week since the lone-wolf attack in orlando. can't allee fear to disrun our daily lives or liberty. we must remain vigilant about the growing threat of islam county extremism and work to extinguish the proselytizing of violence and prevent future tragedies. directing questions regarding the free -- freedom of religion.
we're not at war with or n opposing a certain religion. what we are at war with is an ideology and violence that threatens our free society and the liberty of every individual. as a muslim american, how do we reassure the freedom of religion and push back on violence carried out in the name of religion? >> thank you for the question. my family comes from idea and in end up ya, muslims are a minority organization. we accepted secular governance. that's what my parents taught me. the values of islamism are one inside which there is a sense of superiority to anybodyelse's world order.
the history of how we got here is rooted in the last 100 years. the dismantled of the ottomanomn empire brought with it dreamerst who wanted to create a new islamic state, and so some of the men had names -- those men created movements, like the muslim brotherhood, they are the ones that he is talking about in terms of the dawa. when my came here in the 1960sha he got a ticket to manhattan, kansas, because like a lot of indian imimmigrants he was given a ticket to heartland or america and he loved this country and the values, the dignity of labor he saw by the professors. hewitt to came here to this country came to colorado and hated this country. he hated the freedom that women
get in this country and so how do we protect muslims and how do we resist that islamist movement? it is in my estimation by differentiating that islamist movement from muslims and isolating it, marlingizing it, blacklisting it, taking down web sites. this is how we have to create a image and a vision of islam that is compatible with the 21st 21st century, compatible with the west, with the united states. you come from a state that is a heartland of america. you believe in the same type of values my parents taught me to believe, and it is that kind of universality that has to drive us and we have to recognize there are people in all communities, including in our muslim community, who do not
share our universal values. >> thank you. your testimony you mentioned the role that social media companies are playing in blocking terrorist material. as a society in the united states we encourage the free flow of information and ideas, but there are limits. this platform has enabled rewar. for illegal and often times gruesome actions, and it must stop. now, i spent 12 years in the cloud computing business and software business and i fully appreciate the challenge and commitment to maintain reputable platforms. twitter announced they suspended over 635 accountants for promoting extremism since 2015. but how can government and western society augment the tech companies' efforts?
>> so, to me, we have to make a moral decision that we have a right to speak up and against any form of extremism, even whef it comes in the name of religion. we should flint give muslim extremeists a path because they're expressing religion. we should not give. the a pass because we afraid of offendings muslims. we have to use the same standards we apply to all of society against the muslim supremacists that want to control our country. when i was doing research for this testimony, i looked up the terms of service that go daddy has, that facebook has, that youtube has there are so many operators, as you now, who are violating those terms ofoulo service by preaching hate against jews, against gays, from within my muslim community.
so, i feel it's my obligation as a muslim to say, we cannot allow that to exist, and we have a see something say something verse in the koran, that says, barehi witness to injustice even if it's by your own kin. in that way the social media companies actually have to have the moral courage to police these muslims who are also practicing hate. >> thank you. i want to turn to the doctor. based on your expertise how do we get platforms outside the u.s. to get serious, like twitter and facebook have about removing inappropriate content? >> during the cold war, we had the u.s. information agency that got information out about the united states in the face of -- to counter falsehoods of
anti-american propaganda. we had information policies. we had america houses, for example in germany, where there could be good public policy debate about these issues. we had all sorts of educational, cultural and other kind of exchanges, visitor programs so many people abroad have a caricature view of the united states as fast cars, skyscrapers, dishonest bostonmen, all surround by pornography and people don't see the work of small-town america, of church-going america, of the charitable work, volunteer work done in this country, the kind
of things that can melt people's rathers rather than incite hatred. we need to be telling, portraying our country much more accurately to the world. the last culp of administrations have been gradually shutting down the voice of america. it's a crime. the voice of america during the cold war, along with radio free europe and raidey liberty, were scrubbed by the great russian awe their as the most powerful weapons we possessed in the cold bar because be broadcast information, we broadcast the truth, we broadcast ideas, we gave people accurate history when their history was being erased by totalitarian regimes. radical islamist regimes do that kind of thing, too. complete mischaracterization of historical facts. so, that's some of the open
public dip appliance that can be and pock diplomacy has been completely neglected by our government. it is, believe, this mo cost the eek fifth instrument of american power in the world. will even argue public diplomacy brought down the soviet empire but i don't think most people in the foreign policy community understand that. but then there's the covert side of it which i think is equally important as mr. leiter said, we -- the u.s. got done have much credibility in talking about religious and theological matters. i think there are things, people who do have credibility talking about these things and the u.s. government can magnify theirmenc messages. for example, there are dock -- doctrine inside radical islamism
that say that allah wills everything and that means he wills the rape of the 12-year-old girl and the wills the cholera epidemic in pakistan. does allah really will evil? is that really so? is it allah's will that somebody should good out and kill innocents? are you going to go to heaven for killing independents or perhaps are you going to go to hell? is it's satanic thing to do and is this is language that perhaps u.s. government individual have i already you know, u.s. government representatives cannot use, but it is language that can be put on programming, for example, on, say, the voice of america and on -- whether it's radio or television or whatever, where there are discussions about these things. then there's the covert side of things. during the cold war, we had frank wizner's mighty, journals
of opinions, broadcast stations, organizations are, the congress for cultural freedom, thing that were designed to fight the war of ideas against communism and were remarkably effective at doing this and people wrote for those journals without even knowing where the money came from. the money came from some foundation somewhere but it was the u.s. government money, and after a few cutouts. there are many such things. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator tapes. i just have one further questioo here. i think part of the ron i want to hold this hearing, again, explore this concept of something other than just jihad and the use of potentially what looks like in many cases may be dying organizations but maybe not. want to ask mr. leiter to what extent have we really followed the money trail in terms of
money being diverted from charitable works to not charitable works. let's put it that way. how much more work do we have to do on that. >> senator, a foundational point. think following the money is very important. think in terms of the overall counterterrorist effort, again-important but pretty small. what we're seeing in many of the attacks, at least domestically, funding is about the least important thing there. now, certainly when we talk about larger organizations overseas, whether it's hamas or al-shabaab or other organizations, you're no a different context. in u.s. the funked piece is less important. the fbi, the intelligence community at hillary, large, nsa, cia, do a fantastic job.
the second piece of stopping the blooder flow from charitable organizations to bad piece is is the most rick piece here -- difficult piece here. we have done well with established organizations, hamas, hezbollah, the fbi has done a tremendous amount of work on smuggling tobacco and othermn things, pursuing money in large organizations. much more difficult for the intelligence, the more diverse they come, small charities, that gets really difficult. and i think it is something we have to continue pursuing. it is worthwhile. there's a return on that investment. it is, again -- a penny-wise, pound-foolish. this doesn't cost a lot.
and it is also an important way, if done well, again to build partnerships with the community to talk about the charities that are doing good work but then not alienate the community when you shut down a charity because some of the money has gone to bad things.t the muslim community, like every other community, has to understand that just because they think a charity is good, some of the may may be diverted to very bad things and if the u.s. government takes legal action against the charity, it's not a war against islam. it's a war against certain elements funding things that are contrary to u.s. law and principles. can i -- one very quickly. much of what this panel said i do agree with. i absolutely -- again, want to echo the good doctor's points. call him the good doctor but a i'm not good with the last name. i want to can -- echo on the lack of founding for public
diplomacy and engaging ideologically. it has not been an version to the discussion because it is uncomfortable, not because of political correctness that people say, boy, better not call islamic extremism. there has been deep thought that the right language is, what the problem is and then congresssa bears responsibility for this as well. a lack of strategic vision and funding for programs in a global, robust way, to match the many fantastic military intelligence law enforcement people that we funded. that to me, if we can come out of this hearing, with a commitment, both domestic which internationally to do that with our partners in partnership, and make our executive branch officials speaking about this problem in way that doesn't alienate partners, this is more than worth its assault.
>> -- it's salt. >> agree we shouldn't be penny wise and pound foolish but starts with the proper definition of the problem, admitting reality, understand -- i don't like this reality but we have to deal with it elm u.s. constitution does not have to be a suicide backer. we have to recognize that. i want to thank the witnesses and encourage the senators, all the members of the audience, read the full testimony of allto the witnesses. read the full testimony. i think that's probably pretty good start. so, again, thank you all for your courage, for your time, your testimony. this hearing record will remain open for 15 days for the mission and of statements and questions nor record. this argue is adjourned.
>> host: walt mossberg, in your code of ethics statements he rather not object to news reporter, i'm on the subject to opinion columnists. just go right. >> host: but does that mean? >> guest: just what it says. i'm like a movie reviewer. you go to the movie reviewer to read an objective evenhanded, i don't know, there's a story about the studio. you go to read someone's opinion about whether this is a good movie, whether this particular
actor did a good job or a bad job or by their a particular actor did a good job or bad job, whether aaron sorkin did a good job writing it or david finch did a good job directing it or whatever. it's an opinion. i know people who actually avidly read a reviewers movie reviews or book reviews and do exactly the opposite because they know they will disagree with the person. they have different tastes. i know there are people who swear by this movie reviewer or television reviewer, whatever they are and they followed their advice. that is what i done most of my career. paired when i choose not to review a product in a given week, i often instead comment on an issue. the future of the internet, the behavior of the fcc, what google
ought to be doing, what microsoft got to be doing, what apple ought to be doing. the several opinions objectives. i say that specifically so people understand because there are people. everybody in the media business gets this distinction. but i realized that most of us have realized that lots of our readers don't get that connection, so i just stated up front. it doesn't mean that i am in any way infallible and actually i'm inviting people to say you're completely wrong and here is why. and if they do that in a civil fashion, i might even respond to them and we can get into a discussion about it. >> host: as a lot of people read you regularly, who do you read regularly? >> guest: in text?