[Senate Hearing 108-267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-267
TERRORISM: GROWING WAHHABI INFLUENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2003
__________
Serial No. J-108-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
91-326 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security
JON KYL, Arizona, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Stephen Higgins, Majority Chief Counsel
David Hantman, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio............. 1
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Alexiev, Alex, Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy,
Washington, D.C................................................ 14
Aufhauser, David, General Counsel, U.S. Treasury Department,
Washington, D.C................................................ 7
Mefford, Larry A., Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C............... 9
Schwartz, Stephen, Senior Fellow, Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, Washington, D.C................................... 16
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of the Department of the Treasury to questions
submitted by Senators Kennedy, Kyl, and Schumer................ 28
Responses of Stephen Schwartz to questions submitted by Senators
Kennedy, Schumer, and Kyl...................................... 34
Responses of Alex Alexiev to questions submitted by Senators
Kennedy, Kyl, and Schumer...................................... 51
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Alexiev, Alex, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy,
Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 61
Aufhauser, David, General Counsel, U.S. Treasury Department,
Washington, D.C., prepared statement........................... 67
Mefford, Larry A., Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., prepared
statement...................................................... 81
Schwartz, Stephen, Senior Fellow, Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, Washington, D.C., prepared statement.............. 88
TERRORISM: GROWING WAHHABI INFLUENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland
Security, of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Kyl,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Kyl and Schumer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF OHIO
Chairman Kyl. Welcome to this hearing of the Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland
Security. Our hearing today is entitled, ``Terrorism: Growing
Wahhabi Influence in the United States.''
Let me, first of all, indicate to those in the audience
that we are engaged in about three different things that are
directly relevant to this Committee right now.
First of all, there is a full Committee markup occurring
right now on the asbestos litigation or legislation, and we are
all supposed--well, litigation and legislation--we are going to
be running back and forth to that. We have four votes scheduled
at 2:40 on the floor of the Senate, and so we will have to
excuse ourselves for that.
I apologize to all of you, especially those of you who are
witnesses here because there will be some disruption in our
schedule, but we will begin and move forward as much as we can.
Senator Feinstein will not be able to join us, at least at this
point, but hopefully will be here later, and some of the other
members of the Committee are hoping the join us. But what I
would like to do is get started, make a brief statement, have
Senator Schumer make a brief statement and then at least begin
with our first two representatives of our Government,
representing the first panel.
We are here today to discuss a vital, if largely
overlooked, aspect of the terrorist campaign being waged in our
country, and I think unless we pay closer attention to it and
understand it, we will not know how to protect ourselves
against this. Our witnesses today are going to talk about how
this terrorist campaign is supported in the United States and
how it has been caused to spread.
The problem we are looking at today is the State-sponsored
doctrine and funding of an extremist ideology that provides the
recruiting grounds, support infrastructure and monetary life
blood of today's international terrorists. The extremist
ideology is Wahhabism, a major force behind terrorist groups,
like al Qaeda, a group that, according to the FBI, and I am
quoting, is the ``number one terrorist threat to the U.S.
today.''
Nearly 22 months have passed since the atrocity of
September 11th. Since then, many questions have been asked
about the role in that day's terrible events and in other
challenges we face in the war against terror of Saudi Arabia
and its official sect, a separatist, exclusionary and violent
form of Islam known as Wahhabism.
It is widely recognized that all of the 19 suicide pilots
were Wahhabi followers. In addition, 15 of the 19 were Saudi
subjects. Journalists and experts, as well as spokespeople of
the world, have said that Wahhabism is the source of the
overwhelming majority of terrorist atrocities in today's world,
from Morocco to Indonesia, via Israel, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya.
In addition, Saudi media sources have identified Wahhabi
agents from Saudi Arabia as being responsible for terrorist
attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. The Washington Post has
confirmed Wahhabi involvement in attacks against U.S. forces in
Felugia. To examine the role of Wahhabism and terrorism is not
to label all Muslims as extremists. Indeed, I want to make this
point very, very clear. It is the exact opposite. Analyzing
Wahhabism means identifying the extreme element that, although
enjoying immense political and financial resources, thanks to
support by a sector of the Saudi state, seeks to globally
hijack Islam, one of the world's three great Abrahamic faiths.
It means understanding who our worst enemies are and how we can
support the majority of the world's Muslims, ordinary, normal
people who desire to live in a safe, secure, and stable
environment, in their own effort to defeat terror. In the end,
Islamist terror must be defeated to a significant extent within
Islam by Muslims themselves.
Based on Government documents, Newsweek magazine reported
in its recent issue, June 23rd, that al Qaeda, which experts
have described as a Wahhabi movement, has overhauled its
approach to penetrating the United States, and I just want to
quote this one paragraph before I conclude.
``To foil the heightened security after 9/11, al Qaeda
began to rely on operatives who would be harder to detect. They
recruited U.S. citizens or people with legitimate Western
passports who could move freely in the United States. They used
women and family members as support personnel, and they made an
effort to find African-American Muslims who would be
sympathetic to Islamic extremism, using mosques, prisons and
universities throughout the United States.''
``According to the documents, the former al Qaeda director
of Global Operations who was captured in Pakistan last March
reached deep into the heartland, lining up agents in Baltimore,
Columbus, Ohio, and Peoria, Illinois. The Feds have discovered
at least one--'' and this is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ``--one
KSM-run cell that could have done grave damage to the United
States.''
The extreme nature of Wahhabism is well established. As the
great scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, has noted, ``Saudi oil
revenues have,'' and I am quoting here, ``allowed the Saudis to
spread this fanatical, destructive form of Islam all over the
Muslim World and among the Muslims in the West. Without oil and
the creation of the Saudi kingdom, Wahhabism would have
remained a lunatic fringe.''
Now, some of the testimony that you will hear today will be
chilling. It will describe a well-organized, foreign-funded
terrorist support enterprise that is networked across our own
country, as well as the rest of the world. Today, we will hear
testimony about Saudi, al Qaeda, and Wahhabi involvement in
terrorism. In particular, the Department of Treasury will make
clear that the ultimate goal of terrorist financings is
destruction and will comment on the involvement of Saudi-based
entities and individuals in terrorism.
Representatives of the FBI will testify that the al Qaeda
network remains the most serious threat to U.S. interests here
and overseas.
In addition to the FBI and Treasury, two private
organizations that have spent a great deal of time wrestling
with these issues, the Center for Security Policy and the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, will show the link
between al Qaeda and Wahhabism and will address the struggle
against terrorist financing and terrorist penetration of our
country, the origins of Wahhabism, its international ambitions
and its influence in American Islam.
I welcome all of you to this hearing today, and now we will
turn to somebody who has also devoted a great deal of time and
effort to this war on terror here in the United States, my
colleague, Chuck Schumer.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Well, thank you. And I want to thank you,
Chairman Kyl, for having this very important hearing. This is
an issue that I have been very interested in, as you have
mentioned; terrorism, in general, and Wahhabism, in particular,
for quite a while.
And the issue we are addressing is very important in our
effort the protect America from future terrorist attack. We
have learned that when you ignore it, it gets worse, and so I
really salute you for having this hearing.
Now, since the Wahhabi presence in the United States is a
foreboding one that has potentially harmful and far-reaching
consequences for our Nation's mosques, schools, prisons and
even our military, these hearings could not come at a more
opportune time.
But before I begin, I want to make one thing absolutely
clear: Islam is an admirable and peaceful faith that embraces
tolerance, morality, and charity. As you mentioned, it is one
of the three great Abrahamic faiths, and the bottom line is
anyone who misinterprets and says speaking out against an
extreme faction that advocates violence is speaking out against
one of the great religions because a few of its adherents seek
to hijack what that faith is all about, are totally
misinterpreting and not being American.
What we do not do as Americans is, and we have learned this
because of our long history with race and racial problems is,
take a person and say you are of this faith, you are branded by
some who might share that faith and distort it, and we are
against everybody or take action against everybody or
discriminate against you. I think that is extremely important,
and we should underline it.
Now, most of the Muslim world follows the tenets of
mainstream Muslim of a peaceful, admirable faith, but
unfortunately the increasingly influential and radical Wahhabi
ideology distorts this message by preaching hate, violence and
intolerance, not only toward the Judeo-Christian world, but
towards moderate Muslim as well, to the rest of the Muslim
faith.
Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 terrorists were the products of
Wahhabism's hateful and intolerant system of belief, and over
the past year my office has been studying Wahhab activities in
the United States and around the world and has uncovered
disturbing information. Wahhabism is an extremist exclusionary
form of Islam that not only denigrates other faiths, but also
marginalizes peaceful followers of Islam, like Shia and most
Sunnis.
The roots of Wahhabism can be found in Saudi Arabia, where
the governing regime has made an ugly deal with that Nation's
radical Muslim clerics. The Saudis give Wahhabis protection and
support in exchange for Wahhabis promising not to undermine the
Saudi royal family. This is nothing short of a deal with the
devil. It is the wrong thing to do, and I would urge, I have
urged, the Saudi Government to refrain from it because it is
going to lead to their own undoing, as well as lack of freedom
for their people, as well as lack of progress for their people.
The Wahhabis get to preach the hate and extremism that form
core tenets of Wahhabism without consequence, and more
importantly, because that still falls under Freedom of Speech.
It's when you step over the line between advocating something
verbally, and then doing it, and we have learned that this has
happened over and over again, the Wahhabis are allowed to
recruit disciplines who pose a tremendous threat to Americans
everywhere.
I have written letter after letter to the Saudi Government
asking it to denounce the Wahhabi teachings of its madrassas or
religious schools which preach extremism and stop funding them.
I am sure everyone will be shocked to hear that thus far I have
not received any response from them indicating any change in
policy.
As the Saudis turned a blind eye, the Wahhabi machine is
becoming well-financed, politically powerful, difficult to
prosecute and making dramatic inroads here in the United
States. Let me give you an example of how Wahhabism has reached
some degree of havoc in my own backyard in New York State.
For 20 years, the New York State Department of Corrections
employed Warith Deen Umar as one of its chaplains, eventually
appointing him administrative chaplain of the New York
Department of Correctional Services. A strict believer in
Wahhabi Islam, Umar was responsible for the hiring and firing
of all chaplains in the New York State prison system,
exercising complete control over personnel matters. But last
year Mr. Umar was banned from ever again entering a New York
State prison, after he incited prisoners against America,
specifically preaching to inmates that the 9/11 hijackers
should be remembered as martyrs.
Many of the clerics Umar hired during his tenure have
reportedly echoed his sentiments and sermons before many of New
York State's 13,000 Muslim inmates, as well as, and this is the
amazing point, impeding their freedom of religion by denying
these prisoners access to materials and imams used by more
moderate forms of Islam. There is even one report when a Sunni
Muslim prisoner wanted a different chaplain to come in that he
was beaten because Umar wanted only the Wahhabi faith to be
appointed as chaplains in the New York State prisons. While it
is not surprising that Umar would have hired clerics who shared
his beliefs, I am terribly worried that his minions may have
exposed members of New York's prison population to his
extremist and toxic anti-American views.
More than preaching hate, many of the clerics of Wahhabism
seem to be actively opposing the U.S. Government. In March,
Federal prosecutors in New York indicted a chaplain at the
Auburn correctional facility in New York State for sending
millions of dollars to organizations in Iraq, in violation of
U.S. sanctions. He has since pleaded guilty to the offense.
When my office researched further, we discovered that New
York's prisons were not the only ones that had been penetrated
by this kind of Wahhabi zealotry. The U.S. Federal Bureau of
Prisons uses two groups to select imams who administer to
Muslim inmates. The Graduate School of Islamic and Social
Sciences, whose offices are right across the river in Northern
Virginia and the Islamic Society of Northern America.
As some of the experts appearing later today can testify,
both of these groups appear to have disturbing connections to
Wahhabism and terrorism. The GSISS is under investigation as
part of U.S. Customs Operation Green Quest, for its possible
role in helping to funnel $20 million to terrorists throughout
off-shore financial institutions.
Meanwhile, a number of ISNA board members appear to have
checkered pasts. One member, Siraj Wahhaj, was named as an
unindicted co-conspirator in the WTC, in the World Trade Center
1993 bombings. Another member, Bassam Osman, was previously the
director of the Koranic Literary Institute, an Oak Lawn,
Illinois, organization that had $1.4 million in assets seized
by the Justice Department in June 1998, on the grounds it was
used to support HAMAS activities.
To make matters worse, the GSISS, as well as another
Wahhabi-influenced organization that is under investigation by
Green Quest, the American Muslim Foundation, are the sole
organizations credentialed to advise the Pentagon on who to
choose as imams to serve the 4,000 patriotic and valiant Muslim
soldiers in the U.S. military. Again, these two groups are not
totally Wahhab, but they seem to tolerate those who are Wahhab
and who step over the line, as these facts have shown, not just
in preaching violence and hatred, but actually acting upon it,
and that is the crucial line that we are interested here in,
not to deal with freedom of speech, but rather to deal with
actions that cause, aid and abet terrorism.
While the potential Wahhabi influence in the U.S. Armed
Forces is not well-documented, these organizations have
succeeded in ensuring that militant Wahhabism is the only form
of Islam that is preached to the 12,000 Muslims in Federal
prisons. That is against the American view of pluralism. If
there are some in the prisons who want Wahhab ministers, that
is one thing, but for every Muslim to be forced to have a
Wahhabi minister, that is wrong, incorrect, and against the
American way.
These imams flood the prisons with anti-American, pro-bin
Laden videos, literature, sermons, and tapes. They destroy
literature sent to the prisons by more moderate Shia and Sunni
organizations and prevent imams that follow these traditions
from speaking to prisoners.
In addition, non-Wahhabi Muslim prisoners who seek to
practice their religion often receive threats from Wahhabi
prisoners who have been instructed by Wahhabi imams. The point
to prison is to rehabilitate violent prisoners. Instead, the
Wahhabi influence is inculcating them with the same kind of
militant ideas that drove the 9/11 hijackers to kill thousands
of Americans. Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous situation that
is essentially being ignored. Because despite the evidence, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Pentagon, continue to allow
these Wahhabi organizations, under Federal terrorist
investigation, to serve as their sole religious advisers when
it comes to Islam.
In an effort to end the practice, I have written to the
Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and the
Department of Defense, both of whom responded to tell me they
are looking into the matter. However, Mr. Chairman, their
efforts are only a first step towards revealing the full
picture of the Wahhabi presence in America. And make no
mistake, we need to develop the full picture if we are to
prevent these extremist teachings from causing damage,
terrorism, in this country.
Now, more than ever, I am convinced that the process to
counter this hateful ideology begins with Saudi Arabia. The
Saudis can, and should, stop the terrorist financing that goes
on within their borders. The Saudis can, and should, track down
and arrest terrorists that hide out in their countries, but if
they truly want to stop the violence that led to 9/11 and the
recent attacks in Riyadh, going beyond simple Band-Aid action,
the Saudi Government must repudiate the Wahhabi extremism that
is the source of much of this violence.
It means stop funding the extremist madrassas, purging the
hate-filled textbooks that populate Saudi schools, and putting
an end to the extremist Wahhabi preaching that takes place in
so many of the mosques in Saudi Arabia. If the Saudis do not
end the funding and teaching of extremism, the cycle of
terrorist violence wracking the globe will get worse.
In addition, our Government, specifically, the Defense
Department and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, must do a better
job connecting the dots between the organizations with which
they do business and Wahhabi activists, eliminating those
influences and bringing pluralism to the Muslim population in
the prisons and the army, as it is available to those of the
other great religions.
Mr. Chairman, by holding these hearings, you are doing your
part to show that we have, you are doing what is necessary to
ensure that we do not look back after the next terrorist attack
and say, ``Why did we not stop it when we had the chance?'' My
worry is that the Saudis, and many in this administration, are
not heeding these warning signs. My worry is, by not heeding
these signs, we are once again letting those who hate freedom
recruit disciples in our country that might potentially do us
harm.
My fear, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion is that if we do not
wake up and take action now, those influenced by Wahhabism's
extremist ideology will harm us in, as of yet, unimaginable
ways.
I thank you, again, for holding this hearing.
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer, for
that excellent statement, and let me say that it was my
intention today for this hearing to be a rather broad,
foundational kind of information gathering. And that we would
then begin a series of hearings on the recruitment in prisons,
in mosques, in our own military, and in the other areas that
you identified there. We will, obviously, be both working with
the administration, as well as others, on the outside who have
information that can be brought to bear. So you have really
laid down a good marker for where we want to go with our future
hearings.
We are really fortunate today to have two of the great
public servants in our administration, David Aufhauser, who is
the general counsel for the Department of Treasury. He is the
chief legal adviser and a senior policy adviser to the
Secretary of Treasury. He serves as Chairman of the National
Security Committee's Policy Coordinating Committee on Terrorist
Financing and currently supervises the Office for Terrorist
Financing and Financial Crimes.
And also Larry Mefford, the assistant director of the FBI.
He is in charge of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. In this
position, he is responsible for the oversight, direction, and
coordination of all FBI efforts to combat terrorism against the
United States.
As I said, we could not have two better witnesses to advise
the Committee on what the state of the terrorist threat is in
the United States today, how the financing of terrorism is
accomplished here, and I very much appreciate both of you being
with us today.
David Aufhauser, let us begin with you. Let us see how much
we can get in before we have to go. My hope would be that
perhaps both of you could provide your primary testimony. We
could then break for the votes and come back. I am sorry to
interrupt the hearing in that way, but I think that would be
the best way to proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID AUFHAUSER, GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Aufhauser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
the gracious introduction for me and for Larry.
First, I would like, with your permission, to submit for
the record the written testimony that I have submitted, and
just give you a brief overview, and then I certainly welcome
questions after you hear from Larry.
When I joined the Department of Treasury 2.5 years ago, I
was already well aware of the deficit of hope in the Islamic
world, the most visible symbol of which is the failure to
resolve the question of Palestine. I had traveled in the Middle
East on behalf of the World Bank, and my assignments at that
time were straightforward, but a forensic challenge: Try to
figure out why rivers of money intended to build dams, to
irrigate land or to establish an effective stock market in the
Gulf had failed in their mission with much money left
unaccounted for.
When Paul O'Neill asked me to join him at the Treasury
Department, he gave me a similar and related challenge: Help
the President make every dollar of development aid count, not
only because we are stewards of the taxpayers' money, but
because effective aid is the most promising tonic for hate.
Despair is hate's crucible. And our ambition at that time,
and still is, to try to eliminate it, not with any romantic
notion of changing people's minds, but by changing their
opportunities in life. No man, no man takes up a gun or a bomb
and kills who sees a future for his own family.
Others, however, have sought to exploit despair and to
teach people to kill. They have financed the venture by
defiling charitable purpose, and they have found a convenient
means to do so in the Middle East and particularly in theocracy
of Saudi Arabia. I want to be clear, as both of you are clear.
We are not at war with a faith. We are not at war with a sect.
The war is with those who would seek to compromise faith, with
those who counterfeit it, and with those who champion the death
of innocents in the name of the faith.
And here, the austere and uncompromising, literal, salafist
Wahhabi view of the teachings of Allah has been wrongly invoked
by would-be false prophets, like Osama bin Laden, to legitimize
terror and killing. Still, it is a very important factor to be
taken into account when discussing terrorist financing. The
principle of charity is central to Islam, and with unimaginable
oil wealth has come a commensurate amount of charitable giving
or zakat that has flowed into prominent Saudi-based NGOs.
Those NGOs have offices dispersed in the outposts of the
world, populated by the Islamic diaspora, places where need is
infinite and where hopelessness preys on a night's sleep.
There are, moreover, few financial or human resource
controls on those frontiers, and little sophistication for
dealing with the diversion of charitable money for violent
purpose. It is a combustible compound when mixed with religious
teachings, in thousands of madrassas that condemn pluralism,
preach intolerance, and mark nonbelievers as an enemy.
Fundamentalism simply is too easily morphed in such
circumstances into a mission of hate and terror, and it does
need to be dealt with.
Much of our dialogue with the Saudi Government on terrorist
financing has focused on the misuse of these charitable and
religious missions and the need to tighten the controls. The
result has been a far-reaching charities initiative, at least
the pledge of one, that bars all cross-border giving, absent
Saudi Government oversight and vetting, the closing of 10
offices of the largest and most far-reaching Saudi NGO, Al
Haramain, each office for which we demonstrated to be
underwriters for terror in either the Balkans, East Africa,
Indonesia and in Pakistan, the reconstitution at our suggestion
and recommendation of Al Haramain's board, the arrest of a
significant number of prominent fundraisers now known to us in
Saudi Arabia, an ongoing dialogue on additional, specific NGO
and donor targets, and work towards establishing a framework
for the sharing of more financial information on a near real-
time basis.
This last development is critical, Mr. Chairman. Much of
the evidence in the shadow war is suspect. It is the product of
interrogation, rewards, betrayals and deceits, but a financial
record does not lie. It has singular integrity on the war on
terror, and it is enormously useful. It is useful in helping to
identify, and locate, and capture bad guys, it is useful in
mapping out a network of connections between anonymous bankers
and suicide bombers.
It is useful in helping to evaluate the credibility and the
immediacy of a threat, and it has been useful in trying to
prevent a calamity by starving the enterprise of terror, and it
is an enterprise. By way of example, the al Qaeda paid a tithe
of $20 million a year to the Taliban for their safekeeping. But
if you use the financial records, you might prevent the
calamity, as long as you can starve the enterprise of terror of
its fuel, and its fuel is money.
This brings us back, ironically, to why I came to Treasury
2.5 years ago. As I told you, I did not know whether my words
or advocacy could change people's minds. I did, as I told you,
believe and have confidence that a dollar well-deployed could
enhance opportunity and therefore diminish antipathy to our
values and our ways, but I now know, I now know after the
mission given to me after 9/11, that preventing a dollar from
being misapplied can be of equal service to the Nation, and
perhaps is the surest singular weapon we have to make sure that
the homeland is secure and to let our kids go to schools that
teach tolerance and respect for people of all faiths.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aufhauser appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Kyl. Thank you very much, Mr. Aufhauser.
Mr. Mefford?
STATEMENT OF LARRY A. MEFFORD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Mefford. Good afternoon, Senator Kyl, Senator Schumer.
Thank you for inviting me today to testify regarding the state
of the terrorism threat to the United States. The
Subcommittee's work in this area is an important part of
improving the security of our Nation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation greatly appreciates
your leadership and that of your colleagues and other
committees dealing with the security of our country.
I would like to briefly discuss, for the Subcommittee
today, the FBI's assessment of the current threats facing the
country, with a focus on the radical Sunni extremist threat.
First, let me emphasize the commitment of the FBI to
investigating and disrupting terrorist activity, both in this
country and against U.S. interests overseas. There is no more
important mission within the FBI today. We are dedicating
tremendous resources to this effort, and we will continue to do
so as long as the threat exists.
Establishing the full extent of al Qaeda's presence in the
U.S. and preventing another attack is the FBI's top priority.
Since September 11th of 2001, the FBI has investigated more
than 4,000 terrorist threats to the U.S., and the number of
active FBI investigations into potential terrorist activity has
actually quadrupled.
Working with our partners and local and State law
enforcement and within the U.S. intelligence community, we have
also disrupted terrorist activities in over 35 instances inside
the United States, since September 11th. These include both
domestic and international terrorism matters and consist of a
variety of preventive actions, including arrests, seizure of
funds, and disruption of terrorist recruiting and training
efforts, and even, in certain cases, the prevention of actual
attacks.
No threat or investigative lead goes unanswered today. At
FBI headquarters and our field offices around the country and
through our offices overseas and U.S. embassies, we run every
lead to ground until we find evidence of terrorist activity
which we aggressive pursue or determine that the information is
not substantiated.
While we have disrupted terrorist plots since 9/11, we
remain constantly vigilant as a result of the ongoing nature of
this threat. The greatest danger to our safety and security
comes not from what we know and can prevent, but actually from
what we do not know.
We know this, the al Qaeda terrorist network remains the
most serious threat to U.S. interests both at home and
overseas. That network includes groups committed to the
international jihad movement, and it has demonstrated the
ability to survive numerous and significant setbacks.
Since September 11th, we believe that al Qaeda has been
involved in at least a dozen terrorist attacks around the world
directed against the U.S. and our allies. This fact requires
that we continue to work closely with our partners to fight al
Qaeda and its allies, and all of its forms both here and
overseas.
On March 1st of this year, counterterrorism forces in
Pakistan captured al Qaeda operational commander Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed, and financier Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. In early
2002, another high-ranking al Qaeda operational commander,
Mohamed Atef, was killed in a U.S. bombing raid in Afghanistan.
Many more suspected al Qaeda operatives have been arrested in
the U.S. and abroad and continue to be captured on a weekly
basis, either by U.S. agencies, military forces, or our allies.
Despite these strikes against the leadership of al Qaeda
and their capabilities, that organization remains a very
potent, highly capable, and extremely dangerous terrorist
network. Again, the number one terrorist threat to the U.S.
today in the FBI's estimation. It is adaptive and resilient and
in my opinion it would be a grave mistake to underestimate its
reach and potential abilities. The very recent attacks last
month in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Casablanca, Morocco, which we
believe were either sponsored or inspired by al Qaeda clearly
demonstrate that network's continued ability to murder and
injure innocent, unsuspecting victims.
While large-scale coordinated attacks remain an al Qaeda
objective, disruptions to the network's command and logistics
structures during the past 20 months increase the possibility
that operatives will attempt to carry out smaller scale random
attacks, as evidenced, for example, by Richard Reid's failed
attempt to detonate a shoe bomb in December of 2001 aboard that
transatlantic flight. Such attacks, particularly against softer
or lightly secured targets may be easier to execute today, less
likely to require centralized control. We remain vigilant to
the ability and willingness of individual terrorists acting on
their own in the name of jihad to carry out random attacks of
terror wherever and whenever they can.
We also know that jihadists tend to focus on returning to
unfinished projects, such as the destruction of the World Trade
Center and attacks on U.S. Navy vessels. Consequently, today we
might expect al Qaeda to return to high-profile targets
previously selected, such as high-profile Government buildings
either in the U.S. or overseas. While we know that al Qaeda has
focused on attacks that have economic impact, we believe that
its goals still include the infliction of mass casualties.
We do not have information today that clearly identifies
specific targets, and attacks could conceivably take many
forms. Consequently, finding and rooting out al Qaeda members
and their associates and sympathizers once they have entered
the U.S. is our most serious intelligence and law enforcement
challenge. This is particularly challenging given that the
identity of U.S.-based al Qaeda sleeper cells are probably the
closest held secrets in their networks.
In addition to focusing on identifying individuals directly
involved in launching terrorist attacks, we are also very
concerned about those individuals assisting al Qaeda, providing
support activities such as assisting and fund-raising,
recruiting, training, or other logistical responsibilities.
This remains very important based on the critical nature of
those types of responsibilities to the operation of terrorist
networks. We also are concerned about al Qaeda's continued
intention and efforts to recruit U.S. citizens to support their
cause.
In conclusion, the U.S. faces a wide range of international
terrorist groups and we assess al Qaeda to be the greatest
threat today. Their potential attacks could be large-scale or
more smaller and more isolated. Since our understanding of
their underlying philosophy continues to develop and our
understanding of their actions and preparations continue to
evolve, our assessment of the threat continues to evolve also.
We remain, however, concerned that al Qaeda's intentions to
launch another major attack inside the U.S. continues. That is
why we remain focused on detecting and preventing terrorism,
and we are focused on identifying the sleeper cells in the
United States if they should exist. We will not stray from that
purpose and intend to work closely with State and local law
enforcement and other Federal agencies to continue to enhance
our capabilities in this regard. We appreciate your guidance
and support as we carry out this mission.
In conclusion, I would be happy to answer questions to the
extent that I am able today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mefford appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We have about
10 minutes left in this vote. What I would like to do is take
about 5 minutes between the two of us, submit some questions to
both of you in writing and then excuse you, because there will
be now a significant time lapse here before we to on to the
next panel. It just would not be fair to keep you around. If
you want to answer in one-word answers, that would be just
fine, but do not feel constrained to.
Let me start with you, Mr. Aufhauser. Just very specific
questions. Are the Saudis part of the general terrorist threat
against the United States?
Mr. Aufhauser. People within Saudi Arabia are, yes.
Senator Kyl. Is there still a significant al Qaeda
terrorist threat here in the United States?
Mr. Aufhauser. Yes.
Senator Kyl. In fact, Mr. Mefford, how would you
characterize that overall threat?
Mr. Mefford. It is difficult for me to place an exact
number based on the sensitive nature of our ongoing operations,
but let me character it by saying--
Senator Kyl. Just generally.
Mr. Mefford. --that we have ongoing operations directed
against suspected al Qaeda members and their affiliates in
about 40 States.
Senator Kyl. With regard to the trail of money I should
have asked you, Mr. Aufhauser, specifically about the trail of
money and whether it leads in some cases to Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Aufhauser. In many cases it is the epicenter.
Senator Kyl. Does that trail of money also show money going
to al Qaeda?
Mr. Aufhauser. Yes.
Senator Kyl. Is the money from Saudi Arabia a significant
source of funding for terrorism generally?
Mr. Aufhauser. Yes. Principally al Qaeda but many other
recipients as well.
Senator Kyl. Have you, incidentally, had direct discussions
with Saudi officials in regard to the investigations that have
been conducted?
Mr. Aufhauser. At the highest levels in Riyadh, yes.
Senator Kyl. I am going to ask both of you, especially Mr.
Mefford, I am going to ask you if you have any recommendations
for any changes in, modifications to, additions to the USA
Patriot Act, or any of our other laws, in fact with regard to
both of you. In your investigations and work you have
undoubtedly worked with these laws. If you have any other
suggestions or changes that you might want to this suggest to
us. I am going to put that question to you both in writing and
just ask you to respond, because we are in a position to at
least try. Senator Schumer and I were successful in at least
getting through the Senate a piece of legislation related to
FISA, and we, I think, both stand ready to try to assist you as
we can.
Senator Schumer, do you have anything else for this panel?
Senator Schumer. No, I will defer to you, Mr. Chairman,
because we have votes. I want to thank the panel for their good
work and we will keep pursuing these subjects. Thank you.
Senator Kyl. Thank you. Again, I really apologize. You had
to wait, and there is a lot more I would have loved to have
asked you, but I think I will do that in writing. I would just
express my sincere appreciation. I cannot thank both of you
enough. I was going to comment on the fact, each time somebody
from, particularly the Department of Justice testifies they
always note the number of situations in which we have disrupted
terrorist activity, including specific terrorist threats. I
especially appreciate that testimony.
It is always important to let the American people know that
even though they may not see it, there is a great deal of work
going on behind the scenes that is disrupting these terrorists,
saving lives, preventing violence. On behalf of the people I
just want to say thank you to both of you, and all the folks
that work with you.
This hearing now will be recessed for approximately 40
minutes, until we are finished with our work on the floor, and
then we will come back for our second panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Kyl. This hearing of the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Technology will resume. Again, let me apologize both
to our witnesses and to those who have been patiently waiting
in the audience for the hearing to resume. It is difficult when
you schedule a hearing the last day before a recess and a lot
of business is pending in the Senate, to have an uninterrupted
hearing. I very much apologize for the inconvenience to any of
you. I am hoping that other members will come but we are also
in the markup of the full Judiciary Committee on the asbestos
bill. I may be needed for a quorum there. So we will get going
here, see what happens and see if we can do four things at once
today.
But I am especially disappointed because our panel, I had
really hoped that we would have more members here to directly
hear the testimony, but I plan to ensure that the Committee
members are all exposed very much to the testimony of the
panelists here. Dr. Alex Alexiev and Stephen Schwartz are real
experts in the subject of our hearing today. Let me tell you
just a little bit about them both and then just get right to
our testimony.
Dr. Alex Alexiev is a native of Bulgaria who completed his
graduate studies at UCLA and worked for nearly two decades as a
senior analyst in the National Security Division of the RAND
Corporation. He has also served as a director at Radio Free
Europe, a pro bono adviser to the first democratically elected
prime minister of Bulgaria, and an international business
consultant. Currently, he is a senior fellow at the Center for
Security Policy in Washington, D.C. where he focuses on issues
related to the war on terrorism. He is the author of books and
numerous articles on national security.
Stephen Schwartz is the director of Islam and Democracy
Program at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a
Washington-based think tank concerned with terrorism and
security issues.\1\ Mr. Schwartz is a journalist, author, and
recognized expert on the problem of Saudi Wahhabi extremism and
its infiltration of the global Islamic community. He is the
author of The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Saud From
Tradition to Terror, published in 2002 by Doubleday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stephen Schwartz's affiliation with the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies ended in August 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alexiev, would you like to begin the testimony?
STATEMENT OF ALEX ALEXIEV, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR SECURITY
POLICY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Alexiev. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear here and talk about an issue that is of
the utmost importance. I have submitted a written statement and
instead of reading it, with your permission I would like to
briefly summarize the issues in it.
The basic premise of my statement is that the phenomenon of
violent Islamic extremism is the key problem we are facing
today. Al Qaeda, murderous as it is, is but a symptom, in my
view, of an underlying malignancy which is Islamic extremism
and the entire edifice, if you will, of extremism that breeds
terrorism. What I mean by that is even if we are successful to
defeat al Qaeda totally, another al Qaeda will come by if we do
not at the same time succeed in destroying the edifice of
Islamic extremism.
This huge international infrastructure is sponsored
ideologically and financially by Wahhabism, and that is to say,
Saudi Arabia. I do not believe that we are likely to make much
progress in the war on terrorism, lasting progress, until we
eliminate this edifice of extremism.
Let me briefly talk about the ideology that drives
Wahhabism. Wahhabism pretends to be Islam in its purest form. I
submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is nothing of the kind. It
is in fact an extremely reactionary, obscure sect whose
teaching contradicts traditional Islamic doctrine. To that
extent it is incorrect to refer to it as fundamentalist because
it in fact transgresses against some of the fundamentals of
Islamic teaching as given in the Koran. In fact Wahhabis
teaching contradicts traditional tenets of the Koran to the
point of falsifying them.
The give you just one example, Wahhabism teaches and has
been doing so since the very beginning, since the big 18th
century, that all Muslims that do not subscribe to Wahhabism
are in fact apostates and heretics and violence against them is
not only permissible but in fact obligatory. This continues to
be the teaching that Wahhabis subscribe to to this day. As a
result, Wahhabism is not only directed against infidels, non-
Muslims, but is in fact directed against and threatens Muslims
that do not subscribe to Wahhabism. That is a key point to
understand.
As a result, this violent creed has become, in my view, the
prototype ideology of all Islamic extremist and terrorist
groups, and that includes those that violently oppose the House
of Saud, such as bin Laden. In this respect it is very
important for us to understand that Wahhabi activities are not
a matter of religion, but in my view a matter of criminal
sedition and ought to be treated as such.
It is just as important to understand, as I mentioned, that
they threaten not only our liberal democratic order but they
threaten other Muslims such as Sunnis, the Shi'as, the
different Sufi orders, the Barelvis in South Asia, the Bahai,
the Ahmadis, et cetera. These other Muslims in fact are
potential allies in the struggle against this extremist
phenomenon.
Now how could one explain the fact that such a hateful
creed in fact has been able to take over much of the Islamic
establishment worldwide and become its dominant idiom? The
short answer, and there are also other things we can talk
about--the short answer is money; lots of it. In the past 25
years or so, according to Saudi official information, Saudi
Arabia has given over $70 billion of what they call development
aid, which in fact they themselves confirm goes mostly for what
they call Islamic activities.
Senator Kyl. Over what period of time?
Mr. Alexiev. In the last 25 years roughly, from mid 1970's
to the end of last year; 281 billion Saudi riyals according to
their official statements. This is nearly $2.5 billion per
year. This makes it the largest sustained ideological campaign
in history, in my view. I served as what was called a
Sovietology for nearly two decades and the best estimates that
we had on Soviet external propaganda spending was $1 billion a
year. So you are talking about an absolutely astounding amount
of money being spent for the specific purpose of promoting,
preaching Wahhabi hatred.
They have used this amount of money to take over mosques
around the world, to establish Wahhabi control of Islamic
institutions, subsidize extremist madrassas in South Asia and
elsewhere, control Islamic publishing houses. They currently
control probably four-fifths of all Islamic publishing houses.
And spend money, a lot of it, on aggressive proselytizing,
apart from direct support of terrorism.
What have they achieved for that money? I would submit to
you that they have achieved quite a bit. To give you just one
example, in Pakistan there are roughly 10,000 extremist
madrassas that are run by Deobandi allies of the Wahhabis, and
the Deobandis are very similar in their ideology to the
Wahhabis. They currently teach, according to Pakistan sources,
between one and 1.7 million children, essentially to hate. They
do not get much schooling in any subject that is not related to
Islamic activities.
It is important to know that of these at least 1 million
children, 15 percent are foreigners. So it is not just Pakistan
that is affected by the fact that tens of thousands, hundreds
of thousands of kids are taught how to hate, and graduate from
these madrassas without any useful education that could be used
in the marketplace, but perfectly prepared for a career in
jihad and extremist activities. 16,000 of them, for instance,
are Arabs that are taught in these schools.
As a result, Pakistan is very close to being a
dysfunctional country. Two of its provinces, the Northwest
frontier province and the Beluchistan in fact have governments
that are openly extremist and there is a process of
Talibanization of these provinces that is extremely disturbing.
It is, again, not just Pakistan. It is all over. We do not have
time to discuss that here but let me just mention that in Iraq,
in the Kurdish areas of Iraq there are now over 40 mosques that
are starting to be active there and we are going to hear from
them. This does not augur well for our efforts to build
democracy in Iraq unless we undercut these activities.
Now the money that the Saudis are spending are transferred
to extremist organizations through a network of charities,
front organizations. Contrary to Saudi official claims, which
unfortunately quite often are uncritically accepted by many,
none of them are either private or charitable. They are in fact
government-controlled, government-sponsored, government-funded
organizations, the main ones being the World Muslim League, the
World Assembly of Muslim Youth, the Al Haramain Foundation, and
the International Islamic Relief Organizations. There are many,
many others. There are a total of over 250 so-called charitable
organizations in Saudi Arabia.
Most of the largest organizations, all four of the ones
that I just mentioned, have been implicated in the support of
terrorist activities by U.S. authorities. Let me be just
mention here one additional factor that indicates that the
government of Saudi Arabia knows very well what these
organizations are doing is the fact that they passed a law way
back in 1993 which prohibited any collection of donations, of
zakat donations except under state supervision. So the idea
that you very often hear from the Saudis themselves that
somehow these are private non-government organization is, in my
opinion, bogus.
There is, again, no indication at least to me that Riyadh
is interested in stemming the flow of these monies to extremist
organizations. In fact the opposite is still the case. The
reason that they really cannot do that is because for them to
come clean on the channels and the amount of money is simply to
implicate themselves, to implicate a lot of Saudi officials and
organizations in support of terrorism. While promising that
they will do something about it, the reality of it is very
different.
Let me give you just one quote here from last month, and
that is from the official Saudi government channel, television
channel. A Wahhabi cleric who gives a prayer on the state
channel which deals with the so-called American tyrannical
alliance and the situation of Iraq. He says, oh, God, destroy
the aggressive tyrannical alliance. Oh, God, drown its soldiers
in the seas and destroy them in the deserts. All Wahhabi
clerics are employees of the Saudi state, and obviously the
television channel also belongs to the Saudi state. So the idea
that somehow they do not know what is going on is, again, in my
view, a bogus one.
Let me just finish here by saying that the evidence of the
Saudi Wahhabi sponsorship of extremist networks and activities
is so overwhelming, in my view, that for us to continue to
tolerate it guarantees that we are not going to be able to make
meaningful and lasting progress in the war on terrorism for a
long time to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alexiev appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Alexiev. Stephen Schwartz.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SCHWARTZ, SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR
THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.\1\
Mr. Schwartz. Thank you, Chairman Kyl. Thank you for your
invitation to appear here today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stephen Schwartz's affiliation with the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies ended in August 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I come before this body to describe how adherents to
Wahhabism, the most extreme, separatist, and violent form of
Islam and the official sect in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have
come to dominate Islam in the United States.
Islam is a fairly new participant at the big table of
American religions. The Muslim community only became a
significant element in our country's life in the 1980's. Most
born Muslims, as opposed to those who ``converted''--a term
Muslims avoid, preferring the term new Muslims--most born
Muslims have historically been immigrants from Pakistan and
India who followed traditional, peaceful, mainstream Islam.
With the growth of the Islamic community in America there was
no Islamic establishment in the U.S., in contrast with Britain,
France, and Germany, the main Western countries with
significant Islamic minorities.
Historically, traditional scholars have been a buffer
against extremism in Islam, and for various sociological and
demographic reasons American Islam lacked a stratum of such
clerics. The Wahhabi ideological structure in Saudi Arabia
perceived this as an opportunity to fill a gap, to gain
dominance over an Islamic community in the West with immense
potential for political and social influence.
But the goals of this operation, which was largely
successful, were multiple. First, to control a significant
group of Muslim believers.
Second, to use the Muslim community in the U.S. to pressure
Government and media in the formulation of policy and in
perceptions about Islam. This has come to include liaison
meetings, sensitivity sessions, and other public activities
with high-level Administration officials, including the FBI
director, since September 11th.
Third, to advance the overall Wahhabi agenda of jihad
against the world, an extremist campaign to impose Wahhabism on
the global Islamic community as well as to confront the other
religions. This effort has included the establishment in the
U.S. of a base for funding, recruitment, and strategic tactical
support of terror operations in the U.S. and abroad.
Wahhabi Saudi policy has always been two-faced. That is, at
the same time as the Wahhabis preach hostility and violence,
first against non-Wahhabi Muslims, they maintain a policy of
alliance with Western military powers, Britain, then the U.S.
and France, to ensure their control over the Arabian Peninsula.
At the present time, Shi'a and other non-Wahhabi Muslim
community leaders in this country estimate that 80 percent of
American mosques are under Wahhabi control. This does not mean
80 percent of American Muslims support Wahhabism, although the
main Wahhabi ideological agency in America, the so-called
Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, has asserted
that some 70 percent of American Muslims want, in effect,
Wahhabi teaching in their mosques. This is a claim we consider
unfounded.
Rather, Wahhabi control over mosques means control of
property, buildings, appointment of imams, training of imams,
content of preaching, including in the past, faxing of Friday
sermons from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, control of literature
distributed in mosques and mosque bookstores, notices on
bulletin boards, and organizational solicitation. Similar
influence extends to prison and military chaplaincies, Islamic
elementary and secondary schools or academies, college campus
activity, endowment of academic chairs and programs in Middle
East studies, and most notoriously, charities ostensibly
helping Muslims abroad, many of which have been linked to or
designated as sponsors of terrorism.
The main organizations that have carried out this campaign
are the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, which
originated in the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and
Canada, MSA, and CAIR. Support activities have been provided by
the American Muslim Council, AMC, the American Muslim Alliance,
AMA, and the Muslim American Society, MAS, the Graduate School
of Islamic and Social Sciences, to which Senator Schumer
referred as a certifying organization for chaplains, its sister
body, the International institute of Islam Thought, and a
number of related groups that I have called the Wahhabi lobby.
ISNA operates at least 324 mosques in the U.S. through the
North American Islamic Trust, NAIT. These groups operate as an
interlocking directorate. Both ISNA and CAIR maintain open and
close relations with the Saudi government, a unique situation
in that no other foreign government directly uses religion as a
cover for its political and influence activities in the U.S.
For example, notwithstanding support by the American Jewish
community for the state of Israel, the government of Israel
does not intervene in synagogue life or the activities of
rabbinical or related religious bodies in America.
According to SaudiEmbassy.net, the official web site of the
Saudi government, CAIR received $250,000 from the Jedda-based
Islamic Development Bank in 1999 for the purchase of land in
Washington D.C. to construct a headquarters facility.
In another very disturbing case, the Islamic Development
Bank also granted $295,000 to the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center
in USA for the construction of the Bilal Islamic primary and
secondary school in California in 1999. Asan Akbar, an American
Muslim presently charged with the fatal attack on his fellow
soldiers in Kuwait during the Iraq intervention was affiliated
with this institution.
In addition, the previously mentioned official web site of
the Saudi government reported a donation in 1995 of $4 million
for the construction of a mosque complex in Los Angeles named
for Ibn Taymiyyah, a historic Islamic figure considered the
forerunner of Wahhabism. It should be noted that Ibn Taymiyyah
is viewed as a marginal extremist ideological personality by
many traditional Muslims.
The same web site reported the donation of $6 million, also
in 1995, for a mosque in Cincinnati, Ohio. The web site stated
in the year 2000, ``in the United States the Kingdom has
contributed to the establishment of the Islamic Center in
Washington, D.C., the Omer Bin Al-Khattab Mosque in western Los
Angeles, the Los Angeles Islamic Center, the Fresno Mosque in
California, the Islamic Center in Denver, Colorado, the Islamic
Center in Harrison, New York City, and the Islamic Center in
Northern Virginia.''
How much money in total is involved in this effort? If we
accept a low figure of control, that is NAIT ownership of 27
percent of 1,200 mosques stated by CAIR and cited by Mary
Jacoby and Graham Brink in the St. Petersburg Times, we have
324 mosques. If we assume a relatively low average of
expenditures, that is, $500,000 per mosque, we arrive at $162
million. But given that Saudi official sources show $6 million
in Cincinnati and $4 million in Los Angeles, we should probably
raise the average to at least $1 million per mosque, resulting
in $324 million as a minimum.
Our view, the view of my program is that the number of
mosques under Wahhabi control actually totals at least 600 out
of the official total of 1,200. As noted, Shi'a community
leaders endorsed the figure of 80 percent under Wahhabi
control. But we also offer a number of 4,000 to 6,000 mosques
overall, including small and diverse congregations of many
kinds.
A radical critic of Wahhabism, a man who does not love the
United States very much but has been very candid about the
facts in this situation, stated some years ago that $25 million
had been spent on Islamic centers in the U.S. by the Saudi
authorities. This now clearly seems a low figure. Another anti-
extremist figure estimated Saudi expenses in the U.S. over 30
years, and including schools and free books as well as mosques,
near $1 billion.
It should also be noted that Wahhabi mosques in the U.S.
work in close coordination with the Muslim World League, MWL,
and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, WAMY, Saudi state
entities identified as participants in the funding of al Qaeda.
Wahhabi ideological control within Saudi Arabia is based on the
historic compact of intermarriage dating from the 18th century
between the family of the sect's originator, Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab
and the family of the founding ruler, Ibn Saud. To this day
these families divide governance of the kingdom with the
descendants of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab responsible for religious life
and the Saudi royal family running the state. The two families
also continue to marry their descendants to one another.
The supreme religious leader of Saudi Arabia is a member of
the family of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. The state appoints a minister
of religious affairs who controls such bodies as MWL and WAMY,
and upon leaving his ministerial post he becomes head of MWL.
The official Saudi Embassy web site reported exactly 1 year
ago, on June 26, 2002: ``a delegation of the Muslim World
League that is on a world tour promoting goodwill arrived in
New York yesterday and visited the Islamic Center there,'' that
is, the main Wahhabi mosque there. The same web site later
reported on July 8, 2002, ``during a visit on Friday evening to
the headquarters of the Council on American-Islamic Relations,
CAIR, Secretary-General of the MWL, Dr. Abdullah bin Abdul Mosi
al-Turki advocated coordination among Muslim organizations in
the United States.''
To digress, this would be as if an official of the former
Soviet government had come to the United States and in a
meeting with the Communist Party had openly called for
cooperation between leftist organizations in the United States.
To return to the quote, ``expressing MWL's readiness to
offer assistance in the promotion and coordination of Islamic
works, he announced plans to set up a commission,'' presumably
of the Saudi government, ``for this purpose. The MWL delegation
also visited the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. and was
briefed on its activities by its director, Dr. Abdullah bin
Mohammed Fuaj.''
In a related matter, on June 22nd, 2003, in a letter to the
New York Post, James Zogby, president of the Arab-American
Institute, a civic, nonreligious lobbying organization, stated
that his attendance at a press conference of WAMY in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia had been organized by the U.S. Embassy in the
Kingdom. If this is true, it is extremely alarming. The U.S.
Embassy should not act as a support of WAMY, which as
documented by my foundation and the Saudi Institute, a Saudi
human rights monitoring arm, teaches that Shi'a Muslims, even
unbelievably enough, the followers of Khomeini, are agents of
the Jews. Calling Shi'a Muslims, including the Iranians and
Khomeini, agents of the Jews, is comparable to Nazi claims that
Jewish business owners were Communists, or the propaganda we
heard in ex-Yugoslavia claiming that Tito was an agent of the
Vatican.
When you hear these things in a country, the aim is to
derange people, to separate them from reality and to prepare
for massacres. We believe that issues involving the Saudi Shi'a
minority in the kingdom have begun to alarm the rulers of the
kingdom because they look north of their border and they see
the possibility of a democratic Iraq in formation led by
Shi'as. And they look northeast and they see the possibility of
consolidation of a democratic, at least popular sovereignty in
Iran, another Shi'a country. We are afraid, very afraid they
are preparing some kind of serious repression, violent
repression against Shi'as in Saudi Arabia.
There is clearly a problem of Wahhabi Saudi extremist
influence in American Islam. The time is now to face the
problem squarely and find ways to enable and support
traditional, mainstream America Muslims in taking their
community back from the extremists, while employing law
enforcement to interdict the growth of Wahhabism and its
financial support by the Saudis. If we fail to do this, Wahhabi
extremism continues to endanger the whole world, Muslims and
non-Muslims alike.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much for that powerful
statement, Stephen Schwartz. Let me ask you the first question.
Exactly how would you characterize the influence of Wahhabi
ideology in American Islam today? I do not know if you can
quantify it or you can discuss the quality of it, but how
influential is it?
Mr. Schwartz. If I speak in an informal way and a somewhat
impressionistic way, it is not an easy thing to quantify. But
we have a situation where I accept the figure that has been put
forward by the Shi'as leaders. The Shi'a leaders, their
experience with this has been pretty bitter. They have seen
their historic mosques taken over, they have seen their own
people driven out of mosques. They have seen a situation where
they have essentially been excluded from groups like ISNA and
so forth.
This is how it works today. The born Muslim who comes here
essentially comes here to get away from this stuff. The born
Muslim, by and large, comes here to enjoy the economic and
social benefits of becoming an American. They come here from
places where Islamic extremism has made their lives miserable
and they come here hoping to get away from it, as I said.
They get here and what do they find? They find that
Wahhabism, with Saudi money, dominates American Islam. To them
this is a gigantic shock, a horrifying shock. A Jordanian
Muslim once said to me, if somebody had told me in my village
that I would go to America and go to the mosque and find the
Wahhabis running it, I would have said, the FBI would never
allow that.
So setting up this establishment, setting up an Islamic
establishment, they have taken control of the community in the
United States. This is a disincentive to the ordinary, normal
Muslim, the moderate, traditional mainstream Muslim from acting
to take their faith back. The guy who comes here from a Muslim
country does not want to cause problems for his family back
home. He does not want to stand up in the mosque and fight
these guys. He does not want his kid to come home and say, the
other kids in the Islamic academy say you are an agent of the
Government spying on the Muslims. He does not want to have to
lose business to a boycott by other Muslims. He does not want
to have to deal with this nightmare, and they are not going to
deal with the nightmare. They are not going to act and support
the cause of democracy unless we help them do that.
The other point is that the Islamic establishment I have
described has been extraordinarily successful in capturing the
microphone, in dictating the discourse. A Bosnian Muslim I know
said to me, we Bosnians are grateful to America. America saved
us. But when I turn on my television, I do not see the imam of
the Bosnian mosque in Chicago, who speaks perfect English and
is an enemy of Wahhabism and wants to support America, on the
television speaking for Islam. He says, I see these Wahhabis
speaking for Islam. They are angry, and they are militant, and
they are presenting it all as a matter of a vast conspiracy to
throw them all in camps. They are basically talking as
jihadists. He says to me, what are we going to do about this? I
say, the only thing I can tell you is, some of us are trying to
get your voices into our media.
My last point is this, many people say, and they say with
some bitterness, why don't the mainstream Muslims speak out? As
I've said, a lot of them are intimidated. But a lot of them
have been ignored. If the media and the Government do not give
them a hand, do not lift them up, do not enable them to speak
out, they will not be able to speak out. They will not be
heard.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Alexiev, you said some things somewhat
similar here. Can you tell us in the United States if there are
particular regions in which the Wahhabis have been more
successful in furthering their extremist agenda?
Mr. Alexiev. In the United States or worldwide?
Senator Kyl. Yes, in the United States.
Mr. Alexiev. I think Steve is more of an expert on the
Wahhabi penetration in the U.S., but I do not think there is
any doubt that the Wahhabis control almost totally the Muslim
establishment, or Muslim political establishment, if you will.
Virtually all the organizations that pretend to speak for Islam
in this country are essentially Wahhabi controlled. There are a
few others. There is organizations of the Shi'as and of the
Sufis, but the people that you see being entertained and
allowed access to the White House, the people that are
basically the interlocutors of the FBI, all of them virtually
are Wahhabis. If you look closely at who these people are you
will find an entire network of organizations who all
essentially were created beginning in the 1960's as the
offspring of the so-called Muslim Student Association. They all
have interlocking directorships, they all have pretty much
musical chairs of the people that run them. You look at their
web sites, they all link each other. They are the phenomenon
that Mr. Schwartz described here, the domination of American
Islam by--
Senator Kyl. If you were to try to identify, for example, a
web site or a writing of Wahhabis in the United States, is that
possible? Do they use a web site or writings?
Mr. Alexiev. Yes, they all have web sites. Actually, if you
spend time looking at what they do and what they represent, it
is fairly easy to identify them. For instance, the one thing
that virtually all of them virtually almost incessantly repeat
is dour which is a proselytism. They constantly talk about
proselytizing. They constantly talk about what is allowed and
what is not allowed. They talk about true Islam, correct Islam,
which is a code word for Wahhabi Islam. They refer to, again as
I mentioned, to each other's web sites in their links. They
constantly refer to Saudi institutions, very often the embassy
or the organizations like Al Haramain. They all offer free
books and free literature, Wahhabi literature. The reason for
that is because there is a gigantic printing complex in Medina
that churns out hundreds of millions of copies of Wahhabi
propaganda.
Let me ad here that a Koran is not a Koran. There is a
thing called a Wahhabi Koran, because they make sure that in
the interpretation their own line is pursued. So you now have
that particular printing institution printing Korans in any
number of language, including Hebrew interestingly enough, many
in Russian. All of this literature is offered free of charge to
anybody that wants it because it is propaganda.
So yes, it is possible to identify these web site fairly
easy. Not for the uninitiated though, because you will never
find a Wahhabi web site that will say, this is a Wahhabi web
site. Wahhabism is a very pejorative word for the Wahhabis
themselves because from the very beginning non-Wahhabis
considered Wahhabis, again, an extremist sect. So the term is
highly pejorative. The Wahhabis themselves never use it. They
claim that they are the true Islam.
Senator Kyl. Just for the record, if I could get you to
give us some information about how you would identify web sites
that you are talking about here, that would be very helpful, if
you could.
Mr. Alexiev. Yes. I would just repeat some of the thing
that I said. Again, they will not say that this is a Wahhabi
web sites.
Senator Kyl. I understand. That is why I was just asking
you, perhaps for the record we could get some more information
there.
Mr. Alexiev. Yes, I can certainly provide a written
explanation of that point.
Senator Kyl. That would be very helpful. I am trying,
because I have now been handed a note that says that we have
three more roll call votes beginning very soon so I want to try
to get through as much of this as I can.
Mr. Schwartz. You asked about regional areas and I will
call your attention to--I do not have the data here but I am
sure you recall the incident in the city of Tucson in your own
State, a city that I once lived in, where there was the murder
of a dissident Islamic cleric and the individual involved in
the murder ended up being identified as an al Qaeda agent. So
even in beautiful, peaceful Arizona, which we think of as
pretty much a heartland State where there are not going to be
serious problems involving something so exotic, has actually
seen bloodshed.
As far as the web sites go, I hate to correct my esteemed
colleague but there now is one called the WahhabiMyth.com. They
say that they are Wahhabis and they defend Wahhabis, by and
large--also, not to be such an egomaniac, against me and my
book. This has sprung into existence in the last two or three
weeks. That is quite an interesting web site because Sufism is
a tradition of spiritual and peaceful Islam, their argument is
that the Sufis are the extremists and that Osama bin Laden is a
Sufi. It is really quite an extraordinary site. But they do not
have any hesitation to use the would Wahhabi.
Generally the word Wahhabi is, however, avoided in the same
way that Communists did not like to be called Communists in
America. Wahhabis prefer to be called Salafis. It is just the
same as when Communists called themselves Socialists or
progressives. People knew what it was. Muslims know what it is.
They do not want to hear it.
I will tell you a very interesting web site, www.Dar-Us-
Salam.com. That is one of the purest Wahhabi web sites and it
has on it an extraordinary--it is a lot of stuff in English--
about women. If you read those, you will really understand what
is wrong with Saudi Arabia. Go in and read, for example, why
women are not allowed to drive. That is an extraordinarily
educational experience.
There were also many web sites associated with bin Laden
and his movement which were shut down and then popped up as
mirror sites elsewhere. Some of them are still operating in
Britain and Spain and other countries where they have not been
shut down.
One other I will mention is called www.as-sahwah.com. That
is a fantastically useful bin Laden-ite, jihadist web site that
will tell you things like where to buy 400 videotapes of
Russian soldiers being beheaded, why there is no reason to have
fear on the battlefield because as soon as you die as a jihad
martyr you will immediately get to paradise.
After September 11th, as I say, many of these sites were
shut down but they popped up in other places.
Senator Kyl. Connect this radical form of Islam in the
United States with the terrorists or terrorism potential here
in the United States.
Mr. Schwartz. I do not consider myself an alarmist. I feel
that Wahhabism is in decline and in many respects has been
defeated. My view is that the Muslims of the world got up on
September 12th, 2001 and the vast majority of them said, we did
not ask for this, we did not sign up for this, we do not
support this, we did not want us.
At the same time, it is an unarguable fact that the
preaching and teaching of extremist ideology creates the
propensity to act on the ideology. To the extent that Wahhabism
with its extremely hostile, murderous views of other Muslims,
Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, you name it, to the
extent that that continues to be preached and taught, it
creates, it encourages in people a propensity to act out
extremist, terroristic behavior. It also creates a milieu, an
environment for the collection of funds, the organization of
conspiracies, and the recruitment of foot soldiers for
terrorist activities.
Let me make a slight abstraction here. I am not a
behaviorist. I do not believe that saying things to people that
are ugly, evil and terroristic turns them into terrorists. But
I do believe that creating the environment is a problem, and if
you simply allow 80 percent of American mosques to be a
playground for people to spout these ideas--in my book I
describe, for example, how one of the bin Laden-ite web sites
described how to raise money for extremists who are interfering
with the situation in Chechnya. It basically said, go and put
the notice up on the mosque bulletin board. There was no
suggestion that you should make sure that the imam in the
mosque will not object to it.
The point is, if you create this environment, and above all
if you create this environment in the prison system, or if you
create this environment in the military where people are being
trained in arms and military techniques and so on and so forth,
you are not creating a behaviorist scenario where just
preaching alone creates terrorists, but you are allowing the
maintenance of an environment from which terrorists will
emerge.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Alexiev, I want to ask you the same
question, please.
Mr. Alexiev. Let me just add here, and it is an important
aspect of the connection between the Wahhabi takeover of Muslim
institutions and terrorism. Obviously, when they take over a
mosque or an institution, they use it for indoctrination
purposes, and they bring their imams, and it becomes
essentially a school of that kind of extremism. But it does
something else which has direct relevance to terrorism, and
that is this mosque, if run by Wahhabis, they then collect--
there is a cut, the 2.5 percent that every Muslim must donate
to his mosque. So if the mosque is controlled by the Wahhabis,
they also control the money.
So we have the situation where the U.S. Government tells us
that they have frozen $117 million of terrorist accounts since
9/11 and yet a single mosque in Brooklyn, we are told by U.S.
authorities, has donated $20 million to Osama bin Laden. I can
giver you other examples of mosques in Britain that directly
subsidize terrorists groups, jihadi groups in Pakistan. So that
is a direct connection between the takeover of mosques and
institutions and terrorism.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Alexiev, do you have any evidence of
control by people within the Saudi government of the funding of
charities that at least some of the money which is supplied to
terrorist organizations?
Mr. Alexiev. Yes, indeed. As I think I mentioned, all of
these charities are in fact government controlled, and in fact
many of them run by high-level officials. There are all kinds
direct evidence from Saudi sources that I can supply for the
record that in fact the Saudi government controls these
institutions.
Let me just, if I can find it quickly, let me just mention
this for instance. This is from an official Saudi publication
which talks about the valuable service that Saudi Arabia has
provided to the Muslim community. It says here directly, Saudi
Arabia has either founded or supports the activities of a large
number of specialized organizations dedicated to serving
Muslims, such as the Muslim World League, the King Faisal
Foundation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, the
International Islamic Relief Organization. These are the very
institutions that I mentioned earlier and all of them, again,
have been implicated in terrorist activities by U.S.
authorities.
So the evidence that they are in fact controlled by the
Saudi government is very ample and supplied directly by the
Saudi government itself.
Senator Kyl. Are either of you familiar--I was watching
television a couple days ago and there was a reference to a
directive or a rule, and I do not remember the number but it
was something like Directive No. 98 or something, with the
Saudi banks required to collect a certain amount of money for
charity? I did not know anything about it. I have not been able
to find out anything about it. Do either of you have any idea
what I am talking about, the news story?
Mr. Schwartz. I do not know what the latest one of them is,
but the collection--Dr. Alexiev has very correctly pointed out,
the giving of charity is one of the principles that are
traditionally referred to as the five pillars of Islam. The
donation of funds, the collection of funds is a gigantic
industry in Saudi Arabia, so to speak. There are many, many
continuing decrees and orders of this kind. I can research it
and came back.
Senator Kyl. I would appreciate that for the record. So at
least it is plausible that there would be a rule that banks
would need to collect a certain amount of money?
Mr. Schwartz. Banks have been collecting this money all
along. Banks have been collecting this money since banks were
established in Saudi Arabia.
Senator Kyl. But the question is, is it a directive of the
state itself?
Mr. Schwartz. Absolutely. The banking system in Saudi
Arabia is not an entrepreneurial, commercial banking system
such as we have in the United States. This is another aspect of
Islamic culture, because there are certain rules in Islam for
financial transactions. For example, there is a ban on
interest. There is a whole body of doctrine, law, and practice
called Islamic banking. The Saudi state, which considers itself
the guardian of Islam in the kingdom regulates the banks and
controls numerous banks.
I was going to make a brief comment that might interest
you. Dr. Alexiev talked about the Al Haramain Foundation.
Haramain means the holy places and refers to Mecca and Medina.
Haramain is a very pernicious international Saudi government-
controlled charity that operated in Bosnia. They were among the
first organizations that was shut down in Bosnia and in Somalia
by a coordination action of our Treasury Department and the
Saudi government.
Recently we were told by the Saudi government that Haramain
would no longer operate outside Saudi Arabia, but I have just
learned today that Haramain still has a fund for its activities
in the United States. It is still collecting money right now
for activities in the United States.
So this is one of the problems with this whole thing. The
Saudi authorities tell us all these great things they are
doing, but then when you talk to Saudi subjects as I do every
day, you find that people who are living in the kingdom realize
that what is being told to the United States and what is
actually happening in the kingdom are two very different
universes.
Mr. Alexiev. If I may add something to that. There is
really plenty of evidence that government officials, in fact
very high-ranking Saudi princes on a regular basis organize
donation meetings, donation events, if you will, for these very
organizations that we discussed here. They usually start by
donating $1 million or $2 million or $3 million themselves, and
then the invited businessmen and others do the same. That is
actually very often covered quite extensively in the Saudi
press. I have myself at least six or seven of these instances
which document that the Saudi government is behind organizing
these collection drives for organizations that have been
implicated in terrorist activities by our Government.
Senator Kyl. I want to return to something that was said
before. I may have missed it but I just want to reiterate the
point. There were different figures of the numbers or
percentages of mosques in the United States that have had
funding from Wahhabis. I think the highest number you gave was
80 percent of the mosques being funded by Wahhabis. Did I hear
that number correctly?
Mr. Schwartz. Yes. I am very anxious to say, this is not
something where we can give a scientific figure. There is not a
situation where there is a database that we consult. This is
essentially a pragmatic figure derived from Shi'a and other
Muslims, their description of the situation as they see it.
Senator Kyl. It would be important to note, however, that
in attributing a percentage, whether it is 80 or 60 or whatever
the number is, that that is not to say that it is
representative of the percentage of Muslims in the United
States who adhere to Wahhabi.
Mr. Schwartz. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. If 80 percent
of Muslims in the United States were Wahhabis, we would have a
much worse situation than we have. If it were not for the
money, as Dr. Alexiev and others, as we have all said, if it
were not for the money this strain of Islam would be like the
Christian Identity churches. It would be a crank, fringe,
disreputable, and ignored phenomenon except for when it broke
out from time to time. I must say, thanks to Allah, we cannot
say that 80 percent of American Muslims are Wahhabis under any
circumstances. The majority of American Muslims, I would say,
60, 70 percent of American Muslims follow the traditional
Sunna, or they are Shi'as, or they are Sufis who want to work
and live and prosper in this country as loyal American
citizens. They hate terrorism. If they are born Muslims from
Muslim countries, they came here to escape this.
Senator Kyl. I appreciate that important qualification. I
want to make one other as well because it is a point that Chuck
Schumer made and perhaps is a way for me to end this hearing.
Over the years, the government of Saudi Arabia has on
occasion been very helpful to the United States of America.
There have been certain occasions in which the friendship
between the two governments has redounded to the benefit of the
United States in various ways. But today, I agree with Senator
Schumer that just as other countries around the world have to
come to grips with certain aspects of their society which
contribute to the war on terrorism, including the United States
of America--we have had to tighten up some of our security
procedures. We have had to pass laws. We have had to change
some of our institutions like the FBI and others to reorient
themselves to dealt with this threat in a way much more
directly than they ever used to do. A lot of changes have had
to be made in countries around the world.
But among the countries that have not yet confronted the
threat from terrorism that in many respects they themselves are
fostering, Saudi Arabia is that country. For our friends in
Saudi Arabia, I think a strong message from the United States
has to be, you have got to help us in this war on terrorism or
you yourselves are going to be consumed by it, just as it is
going to consume others in the world.
So I want to conclude this. If any of you want to comment,
fine, but I am going to have to go vote here in just a second.
I think from our witnesses this afternoon we have
established some basic and important facts about the threat of
terrorism in the United States, the specific threat from al
Qaeda, the connection of al Qaeda in Wahhabi, and
unfortunately, the financing connection between Wahhabi and
Saudi Arabia. It simply leads to the conclusion that we have
got to accelerate our efforts to deal with that threat around
the world as it impacts the United States directly.
So this Committee will be conducting a series of hearings
that will further expand on some of specific elements of this,
the tracing of the money, the mosques, the clerics in the
services, other ways in which the United States needs to be
concerned about the way that terrorism is taking hold or could
take hold in this country. I only hope, Mr. Schwartz, that you
are right, that perhaps we have seen the high water mark and as
a result of a lot of exposure the problem is beginning to be
solved.
I thank both of you for testifying today, and with that we
will simply announce that the record will be kept open until
July 9th and the hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1326.055