[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RADICALIZATION: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE RISE OF TERRORISM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 28, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-977 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Art Arthur, Staff Director, Subommittee on National Security
Sarah Vance, Clerk
Subcommittee on National Security
RON DESANTIS, Florida, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts,
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee Ranking Member
JODY B. HICE, Georgia ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma, Vice Chair BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
WILL HURD, Texas TED LIEU, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 28, 2015................................. 1
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mark D. Wallace, Chief Executive Officer, Counter
Extremism Project, (Former U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations)
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 7
Mr. Walter Purdy, President, Terrorism Research Center
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Dr. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Senior Fellow, Foundation for
Defense of Democracies
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
The Honorable Alberto M. Fernandez, Vice President, Middle East
Media Research Institute, (Former U.S. Ambassador to Equatorial
Guinea)
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
APPENDIX
Letter to Chairman DeSantis and Ranking Member Lynch from Anti-
Defamation League.............................................. 28
RADICALIZATION: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE RISE OF TERRORISM
----------
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives DeSantis, Duncan, Hice, Hurd,
Lynch, Lieu and Kelly.
Mr. DeSantis. The Subcommittee on National Security will
come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to
declare a recess at any time.
Today, the civilized world faces an unprecedented level of
violence fueled by Islamic extremism. Recent reports indicate
that over 30,000 people from over 100 different countries have
traveled to the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq to wage jihad
since 2011. This group includes over 4,500 westerners and over
250 Americans who have attempted or actually joined Islamic
supremacist groups. Both Al Qaeda's global network and ISIS,
among several other terrorist networks around the world,
promote an ideology grounded in Islamic extremism and conquest.
As the Congressional Research Service has found, these
terrorists use Islamist and ideological and/or religious
justification for the belief in the establishment of a global
caliphate, a jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and
religious leader known as a caliph via violent means. As the
ideology of militant Islam spreads, the threat to the U.S. and
our allies, such as Israel, persists. Terrorist networks like
Al Qaeda affiliates and ISIS, as well as extremists, clerics,
and others, seek to spread this ideology in order to recruit,
engage sympathizers, and criticize the West. Indeed, this
propaganda is playing a role in promoting terrorist attacks in
the U.S. where many homegrown cases of jihadi terrorism involve
the use of social media.
Several sources indicate that there are 90,000 pro-ISIS
tweets on a daily basis. While others suggest that there may be
as many as 200,000 such tweets. Accounts belonging to other
foreign terrorist organizations, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, Al
Qaeda's branch in Syria, have a total of over 200,000 followers
and are thriving. Official Twitter accounts belonging to Jabhat
al-Nusra operate much like those belonging to ISIS, tweeting
similar extremist content. ISIS' use of platforms like Twitter
is highly effective. YouTube videos depicting violent acts
against Westerners are used to incite others to take up arms
and wage jihad.
While foreign fighters travel overseas for training and to
make other terrorist connections, it's becoming apparent that
Islamic recruits in the United States and other parts of the
world who are unable to travel to these battlegrounds do not
necessarily need to do so in order to receive training and
inspiration. They can engage real time with jihadists on
Twitter, watch ISIS's murderous propaganda on YouTube, view
jihadi selfies on Instagram, or read religious justifications
for the killing of civilians on Just Paste It. The question and
answer Web site, ask.fm, has also become a popular platform for
jihadists.
Unfortunately, ISIS's use of social media is believed to be
resonating with vulnerable populations, particularly Muslim
converts and susceptible alienated youth. However,
radicalization of Americans cannot be narrowed to any single
social or demographic profile. Instead, the Americans who are
being radicalized to support and fight for Islamic extremists
come from all walks of life. Those Americans who travel
overseas to support terrorist groups can also incite others
back home and abroad by their actions to conduct attacks and
can themselves return back to the U.S. with training to
complete terrorist attacks.
The bottom line is that these foreign fighters have been
trained in combat, have strong ties to terrorist groups, and
recruit others to join the fight. The U.S. Government has the
ability under the law to revoke passports on several grounds,
including reasons of national security. The administration has
not indicated they plan to utilize immigration controls as
other countries have in order to stop foreign fighters. Nor is
the danger posed to the United States by foreign fighters
limited to those terrorists and adherents to terrorists groups
who are U.S. citizens. In order to enter the United States,
citizens of most countries must obtain visas issued at overseas
embassies and consulates by the State Department.
In 2014, the State Department issued almost 10 million
visas to foreigners seeking temporary entry into America and
nearly 500,000 immigrant visas for permanent residence. This
process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with
terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United
States. Despite these safeguards, many of the subjects would
have been convinced on terrorist charges in the United States
since 9/11 are aliens who travel to America on visas, including
student visas, tourist visas, and green cards. This danger is
compounded by the large number of foreign fighters from visa-
waiver countries who do not even need a visa to enter our
country.
Federal and State governments as well as communities have
begun to take action to mitigate the threat of terrorist
propaganda on social media. However, they have experienced
multiple challenges in combatting this threat. The
unprecedented speed with which people are being radicalized by
violent Islamic supremacists is difficult to keep up with and
is straining the ability of government to monitor and intercept
suspects. Jihadists using increasingly secure Web sites and
applications, and communicating in code with Americans and
westerners in the United States present even further challenges
for law enforcement in tracking, identifying, and apprehending
those who seek to engage in terrorist attacks.
In order to combat this trend, we must ensure that law
enforcement has the necessary tools to do its job. Efforts to
counter and deter unconventional information warfare must be
joined with other government agencies' efforts to deal with the
problem of terror on social media.
I thank our witnesses for their testimony today and look
forward to examining issues related to the use of social media
by terrorists, the extent that people are being radicalized,
and what can be done to combat this growing problem.
I now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
National Security, Mr. Lynch, for his opening statement.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you for holding this hearing to examine the use of social media
by the Islamic State and would like to thank today's witnesses
for helping the committee with its work.
As noted by Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger, in their recent
book, ISIS, the State of Terror, the Islamic State, also known
as ISIL, has been prolific in its ability to exploit a variety
of social media platforms. According to the authors, jihadists
have been making slick propaganda for decades. But for a long
time, these productions catered to an exclusive audience of
potential recruits, never making the evening news or creeping
into the collective consciousness of the West. However, in
stark contrast, ISIL and its online supporters, continue to use
Twitter, Facebook, WhatsAp, and other social networking
services to broadcast their terrorist messages to a global
audience in real time and significantly extend their
recruitment, mobilization, and financing efforts beyond the
battlefields in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Last week, the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point,
again a J.M. Berger report, issued the existence or noticed the
existence of over 40,000 accounts actively supporting the
Islamic State on Twitter, with an estimated 2,000 accounts
tweeting in English. A majority of these users form the core of
the ISIL's aggressive online recruitment strategy. This
strategy is designed to introduce recruitment targets to the
Islamic State ideology, to groom and lavish attention on
potential recruits through subsequent communication in private
online channels, and directly call them to jihad. Ranging from
lone-wolf style attacks at home, to migration to the Islamic
State. The Islamic State even has a name for its most
enthusiastic online users, mujtahidun, or the industrious ones.
Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger note that these online supporters
are far more active than their counterparts in Jabhat al-Nusra
in Syria or Al Shabaab in Somalia in using social media tactics
to expand their reach.
The impact of ISIL's extensive social media presence has
already been witnessed in the unprecedented flood of foreign
fighters to Iraq and Syria. A few months ago, I had the
opportunity to travel with several House and Senate Members in
a congressional delegation to the Syrian-Turkish border, an
area north of Aleppo. We were briefed on the lack of meaningful
progress in our train and equip program of so-called moderate
rebels. We also met with representatives of about a half dozen
rebel groups. And the only common characteristic between these
groups was, one, they all saw Bashar al-Assad and his regime as
the primary enemy. And, second, the all use WhatsAp as their
platform for communication.
As reported in September of 2015 by the Bipartisan
Congressional Task Force on Combatting Terrorism and Foreign
Travel, nearly 30,000 foreign fighters have traveled to Iraq
and Syria in 2011 to join the Islamic State, including an
estimated 250 individuals from the United States who have
sought to fight on the side of the extremists in ISIL conflict
zones. There is also more direct evidence of the effect of
Islamic State's online strategy here at home. According to the
West Point report, at least 60 individuals have been arrested
in the United States in 2015 for criminal acts in support of
the Islamic State. Social media has played a role in the
recruitment or radicalization in almost every single case.
As ranking member for the Financial Services Committee's
Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, I am well aware
that ISIL and other terrorist groups are also using social
media platforms and applications to coordinate funding for
terrorist activity. Last year, David Cohen, who was then the
undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at
Treasury, remarked that constraining the flow of funds to
terrorist groups is, ``particularly challenging in an area when
social media allows anyone with an Internet connection to set
himself up as an international terrorist financier.'' In
particular, we have seen that private funding networks are
relying on social media to solicit so-called charitable
donations and inconspicuously connect donors with recipients on
the battlefield. In response to the exploitation of social
media by ISIL and other terrorist groups, Twitter and other
service providers have slowly, and I must say grudgingly in
some cases, begun to take some action to suspend terrorism-
linked users accounts. This is often called a whack-a-mole
approach to countering terrorism messaging, as suspended users
can simply create new accounts. Jessica Stern and other
analysts have noted that to a certain extent this strategy can
prove effective in disrupting for a while and eventually
downgrading terrorist social networks.
In addition, in 2011, the U.S. has established the Center
for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications at the State
Department, which for the past couple years has focused on
countering ISIL's propaganda. However, as noted by one of
today's witnesses, Ambassador Fernandez, the Center's budget
over 3 years totaled the cost of a single Reaper drone, $15
million, and has remained the same since 2012. The team of
operators and editors working in Arabic and English has not
exceeded 15 people at any one time. The Center has also been
operating amidst congressional budget constraints and hiring
freezes that result at Federal agencies when Congress continues
to enact short-term funding resolutions instead of traditional
appropriations bills. We may have some progress in that regard
as pending.
Mr. Chairman, it's clear that we must do more to counter
the social media threat posed by the Islamic State and other
terrorist groups. I look forward to discussing what additional
steps we can take to strengthen our counterterrorism strategy
in this regard, as well as support corresponding international,
private sector, law enforcement, and community efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance of
our time.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. I'll hold the record open for 5 legislative
days for any members who would like to submit a written
statement.
Mr. DeSantis. We'll now recognize our panel of witnesses.
I'm pleased to welcome Ambassador Mark Wallace, chief executive
office of the Counter Extremism Project, Mr. Walter Purdy,
president of the Terrorism Research Center, Mr. Daveed
Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense
of Democracies, Ambassador Alberto Fernandez, vice-president of
the Middle East Media Research Institute. Welcome to you all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. So if you could please stand and raise
your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to
give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth so help you God?
Thank you. Please be seated. All witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be
made part of the record. Ambassador Wallace, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK D. WALLACE
Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman DeSantis,
Ranking Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you. It's obviously my
great pleasure and honor to appear with my distinguished
colleagues on this panel.
The hijacking and weaponization of social media platforms
by extremist groups to radicalize, recruit and plan violent
attacks against innocent people around the world is a cancer
that continues to grow largely unabated. Today, there are at
least 43,000 active pro-ISIS Twitter accounts endlessly
amplifying and repeating ISIS's messages of hate and terror.
The more than 30,000 people who have joined ISIS from around
the world is a testament to the power of social media.
On September 11 of this year, CEP, the Counter Extremism
Project, released profiles of 66 Americans who have joined or
allegedly attempted to join the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria, as well as other Americans accused of planning attacks
on U.S. soil, providing financial assistance to extremist
entities, or propagandizing on their behalf. These individuals
have very different backgrounds and experiences. But the one
characteristic that they seem to share is active participation
on social media. In addition, we will soon release profiles on
54 of the most prolific social media propagandists. Through
#CEPDigitalDistruption, we have identified and reported
hundreds of extremists to Twitter. And in June, we expanded our
campaign to include monitoring of Twitter accounts in French,
Italian, German, and Turkish.
We respect and honor our American constitutional traditions
of free speech. Our standard for reporting an account is
incitement of violence or direct threats. To be clear, we are
concerned about various social media platforms. Our focus is on
Twitter because it's effectively the gateway drug where
individuals, usually young people, are first exposed to
propaganda and radical content. It's, of course, an enormously
successful platform, Twitter, ubiquitous. In many ways, that
success has spurred its misuse by online jihadis. We wrote
three letters to Twitter. But the response we have gotten is
dismissive to the point of dereliction. Twitter's attitude can
be best summarized in a quote provided to Mother Jones magazine
by a Twitter official. They said ``one man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter.'' I want to repeat that. ``One
man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'' Of course,
this statement is insipid and unserious, particularly in the
context of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and many other extremist groups.
Sally Jones epitomizes Twitter's failure to act
effectively. Jones, known on Twitter as Um Hassan Al-Bretani,
is a British ISIS operative. In September, Jones issued a kill
list of 100 U.S. servicemen. She was named an SDN global
terrorist and placed on the United Nations' Security Council's
sanctions list. And, yet, in October, Jones urged violence on
Twitter against Navy Seal Veteran Robert O'Neil and Dillard
Johnson, a former Army sergeant. If Twitter can beef up its
policies as it relates to bullying and harassment of women, why
does it show such dismissiveness when it comes to those
promoting and glorifying terror.
We stand ready to work with Congress, the administration,
and any company, including Twitter, in finding the right mix of
remedies that effectively attacks this growing problem, while
protecting our values and liberties. We believe there are clear
and immediate changes that all social media companies could
make. First, one of the problems we have encountered is that
many social media companies place accounts that have been
reported into a rolling queue. We believe that by giving CEP as
well as others like the State Department trusted reporting
status and opening a direct line of communication, we can more
easily and swiftly identify and remove the most notorious
extremists online.
Second, our campaign relies in part on our stakeholder
audience also reporting accounts. But the reporting process on
Twitter and other social media sites is long and cumbersome.
Twitter recently started its streamlined reporting process for
women to report harassment or stalking which is great. But
reporting of violent extremists still falls into a catchall
category.
Third, while every organization is different, we believe
it's critical that America's most important tech companies show
a united front when it comes to fighting violent extremism.
This would include a clear public policy statement that
extremist activities will not be tolerated.
Fourth, shine the bright spotlight of transparency in the
most extremist, most egregious extremist accounts. This past
year, one of the most influential social media jihadi, Shami
Witness, was exposed and immediately shut down his accounts and
stopped operating. We can collectively agree that the most
egregious of cyber jihadis do not deserve anonymity or the
right of free hate and incitement of terror speech through the
use of Twitter or any other social media platform.
Fifth, companies should more proactively monitor content.
It's one thing to take down, but they should more proactively
monitor. While no social media company has been able to resolve
the problem completely, companies like Google and Facebook are
at least willing to have a conversation and take steps to
address the issue.
I am convinced that there are strategies that we can bring
to bear on those who attempt to hijack and weaponize social
media platforms. The majority of social media companies are
U.S. companies. But online misuse has global consequences. It's
time that social media companies like Twitter take
responsibility for the global implications of their platform
and their lack of action.
I would respectfully ask that my full remarks be included
in the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Ranking Member Lynch.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Ambassador Wallace.
[The statement of Mr. Wallace follows:]
[Written statements can be found at: https://
oversight.house.gov/hearing/radicalization-social-media-and-the
rise-of-terrorism/]
Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Purdy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WALTER PURDY
Mr. Purdy. Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me today to testify on this important issue.
As I was driving down here this morning, I thought back to
almost 14 years ago when I sat with an American young man from
California, who actually was radicalized in California,
traveled overseas to Pakistan, made his way into Afghanistan
where he trained in a terrorist training camp. Today,
individuals here in the United States don't have to undertake
that journey that this individual from California did 14 years
ago. Today, anybody with a smart phone or a computer can become
radicalized online.
Radicalization today takes so many different forms. There
is no single pathway for someone becoming radicalized. And,
yet, we see groups like Al Qaeda, al Nusra, ISIS all using
social media and Internet today to act as enablers, providing a
medium for these individuals seeking that path of self-
radicalization. We see many works like Milestones, The Call to
Global Jihad by Abu Musab al Suri, Constants on the Path of
Jihad by Anwar al-Awlaki. These constant themes keep coming up
in ISIS, al Nusra, and other terrorist social media, seeking to
help radicalize these individuals before they go overseas and
travel. These works constantly come up. And individuals here in
the United States that have gone to social media sites, like
some that you have mentioned in your opening statements, have
helped to manipulate and motivate these individuals to
undertake activities that run the spectrum from raising money,
providing material support, undertaking to fight jihad here in
the United States, traveling overseas to enter countries,
Turkey, Greece, and others on there way to fight in Iraq and
Syria, to plotting operations here in the United States.
Many of these individuals that we see have started that
process of radicalization by going online, using the Internet.
Individuals like Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, exchanged
dozens of emails with his spiritual mentor, Anwar al-Awlaki.
American citizens, Awlaki and Adam Gadahn, both radicalized and
recruited other individuals, sending people to various sites to
help develop their radicalization. Virtual mentors today have
communicated with potential recruits and others to deliver
their messages to these individuals in blogs, Web sites,
chatrooms, and forums.
The use of encrypted communication today, is a barrier in
which law enforcement has to deal with to try to get to the
bottom of this very challenging problem. Adam Gadahn, in a
propaganda video years ago, stated, I advise every brother who
wants to work for this religion not to undertake any action
before taking advantage of the wide range of resources
available today on the Internet. Whether a group like Al Qaeda,
Al Nusra, or ISIS, they all constantly point those individuals,
seeking to wage jihad, here in the United States or abroad to
the Internet. The United States faces various challenges from
homegrown violent extremists who have been radicalized to
launch attacks here in the United States.
We have seen a growing list of Americans who have traveled
to fight jihad and support terrorists groups like ISIS
overseas. Former director of the FBI, speaking about Americans
who had gone overseas to fight, stated, it raises the question
of whether these young men will one day come home. And, if so,
what type of things will they undertake here.
Today, any American uses social media to gain any sort of
information and an understanding of all kinds of things that
are placed on the Internet. But these individuals are using
this particular platform so that they can gain access to jihadi
fighters in theater and also to help recruit and radicalize
potential American fighters. The number of American fighters
that have taken selfies, created digital propaganda of
themselves, fuse this particular effort that we see.
Since the Syrian conflict escalated, we have seen over 300
Americans attempt to or travel to or fight in Syria.
Individuals like Nicole Mansfield, convert to Islam from Flynt,
Michigan. Individuals from Virginia, Massachusetts, Florida
have all gone and fought overseas. An American from Florida, on
May 25, 2014, actually went and became their first suicide
bomber in Syria. He grew up in a gated community. This
particular social media platform is the fire that fuels the
radicalization and the challenge that we face. I would say one
additional thing that we need to understand.
Mr. DeSantis. I appreciate it. We'll do the written
comments. Your time is up. And we'll be sure to give you an
opportunity in the question and answer to expand on that.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Purdy follows:]https://
oversight.house.gov/hearing/radicalization-social-media-and-the
rise-of-terrorism/]
Mr. DeSantis. And, now, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, you're
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS
Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Thank you, Chairman DeSantis, Ranking
Member Lynch, distinguished members. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today.
What I would like to focus on is the broader view of how
social media is having an impact on the strategic information
environment. Social media is revolutionary in so many ways. And
I thought both the opening statements and also my colleagues
have done a very good job of articulating those ways. But,
ultimately, it's something which is tried and true in an armed
conflict, that is, it's a tool of strategic communication.
I think in addition to understanding the direct impact of
what ISIS is doing, we also need to understand how an
organization like this, which has achieved a technical mastery
of this strategic communication tool and also is branded by its
over the top violence, we need to understand the impact that
has on the overall information environment.
Chairman DeSantis, you spoke of the many extremist groups
today that are operating in Syria and elsewhere and the many
extremist groups that use this social media platform. ISIS is
much more adept at it than others in terms of directly
mobilizing people to their cause. But other groups also have
their communication strategies.
ISIS, of course, was born out of the Al Qaeda organization
and now challenges it for supremacy over the global jihadist
movement. In so many ways, ISIS's rise has harmed Al Qaeda,
including stealing away their fighters, stealing away their
affiliates. But in other ways, it's actually benefited the Al
Qaeda organization. In fact, today, Al Qaeda members are
speaking openly of the ways in which ISIS's rise has helped
them in terms of their communication.
In the latest issue of al-Risalah, which is an Al Qaeda-
affiliated magazine published out of Syria, Usama Hamza
Australi, who is a longtime confederate of the Al Qaeda
organization, referred to ISIS's rise as a blessing in
disguise. The reason he gave is that previously when people
talked about extremism, they talked about people, Australi
said, who wage jihad as being the extremists. Australi said now
they know that it's not people who wage jihad that are the
extremists, it's not those who avoid it, who are moderates,
rather, he said, ISIS is the extremists and we, Al Qaeda, are
the moderates.
Bin Laden recognized before his death that grave damage had
been done to the Al Qaeda brand through the excesses of ISIS's
predecessor, Al Qaeda in Iraq. He wanted to re-brand Al Qaeda.
And he wanted to do this so badly, so deeply that he even
thought about changing the organization's name. Well, two
things have given Al Qaeda tremendous opportunities. One of
which is the awful Sunni-Shia conflict which is racking the
region, which has shifted strategic priorities and made some
Sunni gulf states see Al Qaeda as a possible counterbalance
against Iran.
The second thing is the rise of ISIS, which Al Qaeda is
able to use as a foil. And they've done this successfully, much
more successfully than we're now acknowledging and in ways that
going to cause lasting problems for us. Right now, Al Qaeda is
receiving state support. This is out in the open. The Jaysh al-
Fatah Coalition, of which both Al Qaeda Syrian affiliates
Jabhat al-Nusra and also the other jihadist group, Ahrar al-
Sham are leading members. Receives open support from Qatar,
Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. In Yemen, Al Qaeda is at the
forefront of opposing the advance of Arabian-backed Houthis.
Right now, Al Qaeda controls territory on the ground in Yemen,
in Al Mukalla, which is the 5th largest city, and also in Aden.
In fact, we're seeing the collapse of the anti-Al Qaeda
sanctions regime with Mohammed Islambolly, a high-level member
in the Khorasan Group in Syria, being delisted by the United
Nations just 2 days ago.
Our own actions have an impact and prevent us from
countering some of these negative developments. Let's not lose
sight of the fact that our actions are communicated acts. When
you look at our policies in Syria, which the Oversight
Committee also is concerned about, one thing that has come up
in the past few weeks after Russia started bombing is
complaints from officials about how Russia was bombing U.S.-
backed rebels.
There's an amazing article by Ken Dilanian in the
Associated Press, published on October 10, where he talks about
how U.S. officials said that our rebels were gaining ground
prior to the Russian bombing. When he names where those rebels
were gaining ground, in Idlib, in Hama, it's obvious that the
people at the forefront were Jaysh al-Fatah, the coalition
that's associated with Al Qaeda. I wish this were conspiracy
theory. I wish that this was hyperbole.
But U.S. officials are talking about the fact that our
rebels are helping Al Qaeda make advances on the ground. This
is of grave concern because it's ultimately a communicated act.
Our actions are communicated acts. And if we take actions that
are contrary to our values and arguably contrary to U.S. law,
that can stop us from preventing this tremendous shift where Al
Qaeda is operating much more openly. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Gartenstein-Ross
follows:]https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/radicalization-
social-media-and-the rise-of-terrorism/]
Mr. DeSantis. Ambassador Fernandez, welcome. You're
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBERTO M. FERNANDEZ
Mr. Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Ranking Member Lynch, other members, and ladies and gentlemen.
It's a pleasure to be here with you today.
The ISIS appeal is truly revolutionary. This is a complete
package, which includes a strong ideological component, deeply
rooted in a specific Salafi jihadist reading of the period of
formative Islam, a political project of building the caliphate
state which is seen as a going concern and a 21st century
appeal to substantive and consequential participation, aimed at
youth searching for purpose and identity, in a seemingly
aimless, empty, and hedonistic world.
Social media itself is not the heart of the issue. Social
media is the accelerant. It's the thing that turbocharges a
poisonous and powerful message. This appeal that ISIS has, has
come closer than that of many other Islamic terrorist groups in
mainstreaming its discussion. Mainstreaming its world view, and
has, as other witnesses have said, ignited a terrorist media
arms race with other groups seeking to match and even try to
supercede what the Islamic State is doing.
The propaganda of ISIS is connected to the reality on the
ground. The carnage in Syria and the victories in Iraq are
eventually what led to the declaration of the caliphate. And we
saw online support spike through the roof in the aftermath of
these events.
What are some of the practical steps that can be taken?
Number one, we need to realize that military victory is the
best way to weaken ISIS propaganda appeal. There is a
connection between the real world and the propaganda. The
propaganda gets weakened when the reality on the ground
changes.
Number two, as has been said here, there needs to be much
better policing of social media. Not all social media companies
are the same. Facebook has made real progress. But YouTube,
Twitter, and others lag behind. It's overdue for Congress and
for others to have a serious exchange of views, a serious
conversation with social media companies on the terrorist
presence on the Internet and how these companies violate terms
of services, let alone the question of legality. Better
policing of the Internet will decrease the number of ISIS
propagandists and help those who are fighting it be increased.
There is value in making it inconvenient for them.
Number two, people are radicalized in clusters as part of a
personal relationship either directly or in person online. We
know that recent converts, 40 percent of ISIS, people who want
to join ISIS have been recent converts in the United States.
And second generation immigrants are particularly at risk. We
need to empower domestic and international civil society by
both consistent funding and training to be on all the time, to
be intervening and engaging with these lost and questing souls,
enlist people who have a talent for engagement.
Third, Syria is important. ISIS seeks to present Syria as a
mobilizing factor to mobilize people, to radicalize them, to
get them to do something. They present a false image of the
reality in Syria. And there is power in helping the Syrian
people, victims of ISIS, survivors of ISIS violence, being able
to communicate the reality on the ground that is often not
known by a teenager in Mississippi or in California.
Finally, the last point I would mention is the issue of
volume. Volume has value. We all know in our personal lives how
you may see an obscure idea or strange idea be amplified by
social media because a lot of people are pushing it. It's
incredible to me that to this day, the United States, friendly
countries in the West and in the Middle East are out numbered
by the Islamic State. And you need volume to make the message
more powerful. You need a network to fight a network.
There have been some small steps taken by the State
Department, by friendly governments to begin to do this but we
need to do a lot more. You need to encourage people and inspire
them like ISIS does to do propaganda, or you need to rent them.
But you need to find a way to form loose, open source
communities of interest or swarms that can swarm back and push
back against the ISIS message. It's not an impossible thing to
do. It can be done. We just need to have a little more will and
a little more support in doing so. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Fernandez follows:]https://
oversight.house.gov/hearing/radicalization-social-media-and-the
rise-of-terrorism/]
Mr. DeSantis. The chair now recognizes himself for 5
minutes. Ambassador Wallace, you talked about how you can be in
a queue if you report something to social media companies. But
I noticed there was that incident, it was probably a month,
month and a half ago, where you had an individual, a deranged
individual, film him killing a newspaper reporter online. And
he was posting that on social media. And that got taken down
very quickly. And rightfully so. So they actually, they
definitely have the capacity to do it. So why, what is keeping
them from acting with that same swiftness when you're talking
about terrorism?
Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's obviously the
question of the moment in my opinion regarding many of the
social media companies, particularly Twitter. There's this
notion, and perhaps it's hubris, that we have a right to social
media in the Constitution, that we have a right to tweet in the
Constitution. Last time I checked my Constitution, there's no
reference to Twitter. It's a reference to free speech.
And for history, throughout our history, we have
thoughtfully debated the appropriate limitations on what is
legitimate speech and what is not legitimate speech. And I hope
by this hearing and by my colleagues that we have that debate
on the nature of some of these communications. Twitter does not
effectively take down accounts quickly enough or search them
out quickly enough when it does so in a variety of other areas,
whether it's stalking of women or other abuse, like the example
that you referenced, child pornography and the like, that's the
first problem. They don't effectively take it down when it's
up. Even when we report it, it's not taken down quickly.
And the second problem, if I may, is they come back.
Congressman Lynch referred to the game of whack-a-mole. I used
that in a previous testimony. And I agree that whack-a-mole is
apt analogy except for one point. When you bop one in whack-a-
mole, it comes back with fewer followers. But look at this
example. You have a jihadi tweeting that he is having his 100th
account suspended with similar names. That's unacceptable. We
have to have a debate. We have to have a discussion at this
committee about how we, if Twitter and the likes of Twitter
don't find ways of solving this problem themselves, we need to
find a way to help them solve that problem.
Mr. DeSantis. There's this #CEPDigitalDistruption. Can you
explain what that means and talk about the work you're doing to
combat radicalization propaganda?
Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As my colleague
Ambassador Fernandez said, we took it upon ourselves to create
a hashtag to try to report accounts and digitally disrupt, if
you will, the misuse of online accounts. So we have created a
team of young people, many of whom are behind me today, and in
offices in New York and Washington, where we try to report and
take down as many accounts as we can, effectively engaging in
the game of whack-a-mole. And by creating a dynamic online
constituency, we call on those that support our effort to also
report accounts. But we need a partner. We need a partner in
the likes of Twitter that will respond quickly to our work and
hopefully the work of others.
I think Alberto mentioned that we need to have a thousand,
he didn't use these words, but a thousand flowers blossom. We
should do it in private. The government should do it in public.
If we all report these accounts and create a network to take it
down, we can be effective. #CEPDigitalDisruption, is our bit in
that effort.
Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Purdy, you mentioned radicalization by
people like Anwar al-Awlaki. What tools are used to radicalize
individuals that I think that are the most concerning?
Mr. Purdy. I think the tools that we constantly see people
using on social media are videos and also referring individuals
to books and others individuals who can help in that
radicalization process. You know, 14 years ago when that kid
from California was going down that pathway of radicalization,
he had to go and sit with somebody out there in California not
in a mosque but after mosque.
Today, these individuals, anybody with a phone can now go
online and they're directed to particular sites where they can
watch videos. They can actually be tweeting with somebody
that's in Syria today who is sending them back pictures and
look at what we are doing today. And especially for young
people who ISIS is targeting, and they are targeting young
individuals. If we look at the people, the individuals who have
been locked up the last year, you know, the individuals are
clearly, there are certain themes, they're all very young,
they're disenfranchised in one way or another.
Last night, I just happened to, in speaking to a group, I
had a girl come up and speak to me. And she said I was a
student with Zachary Chesser in Falls Church, Virginia, I went
to high school with him. And these are some things that I
remember about this. And this individual kind of what changed
as this young woman knew him, kind of that radicalization
process. She said all of a sudden, he started growing a beard.
All of a sudden, he started not hanging out with kids and
individuals, that almost self-cloistering of this one
individual, and then changing and not wanting anything to do
with females or other Westerners.
And we have seen that from Mohammad Sidique Khan in London
with the July 2005 bombers that, again, self-radicalized
themselves, being able to go online and go to particular sites
where they can acquire this information.
Mr. DeSantis. Great. My time is expired. I now recognize
the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I want to thank you again, members of
the panel, for your wonderful testimony.
The struggle in dealing with some of the platforms, whether
it be Twitter or WhatsAp or Facebook, and I acknowledge that
there's variable response rates from those different
organizations. The problem we have is that we have to try to
balance national security. And we all agree that ISIL is out
there and is an immediate threat. We also have to try to
balance that against the rights of free speech that people
have. And that's been a struggle here.
But in reality, Ambassador Wallace, your group has been out
there, you're engaged in some, you're doing some good work, and
you're reporting on some of these efforts over the top. Where
do you draw the line? I mean, where do you, you know, it's, you
know, Mr. Purdy, you mentioned, Milestones by Qutb, you know,
which was written probably back in the 1950s, maybe even
earlier. I'm not sure if I'm right on that. But it's a piece of
literature that, you know, has led to the radicalization of
some groups. But people might argue that has value elsewhere in
Islam.
Where do you draw the line where, you know, some postings
are a threat and you need to take them down? And are the things
that we are seeing now an easy call? Or do we get into this
debate? Some of these people are clearly, you know, they're
putting videos on there of executions, things like that, which
is an easy call I would imagine. What are the, you know, how
does your organization do some of its greatest work in terms of
forcing, you know, these platforms to take down some of this
stuff?
Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Congresswoman. Look, I think that
the analysis and this debate that you just framed very
eloquently, is a debate that we have had in other contexts
before. We have, at times in our history, weighed free speech
versus a challenge that we think is against the law or a
challenge to our society. And there are a whole realm of areas
of speech that we have said is wrong and we prohibited it. I
think the mere fact that we're having this discussion is
advancing the ball. I would just hope that we could invigorate
an even bigger discussion about that debate because whatever
comes of it will be better than we have now in my opinion.
But look, I think that the analysis for us is relatively
simple. If I were to send a hunting knife to ISIS, I think all
of you would say Wallace, you're providing material support to
ISIS because that hunting knife could be used for dastardly
things. And a hunting knife is pretty benign. So, ultimately,
it's really a material support analysis. And we feel that if an
online propagandist is recruiting, I think material support is
seeking financial support, material support, is calling to act
on behalf of a terrorist group, that's material support. I
think the propaganda sometimes can be a closer call. But I
think we should have the debate. I personally believe if you
are a Twitter person and putting out boatloads of propaganda on
behalf of the specially designated national ISIS, I think that
that should be prohibited speech. And I think we should have
the debate on that.
And so I think the analysis is already found in our law.
It's a question of expanding upon it and ensuring that we
implement that in the context of social media.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. That's helpful. Anybody else want to take
a crack at that? I have another follow-up question in terms of,
you know, how we actually accomplish this. There are two models
that, and the testimony here this morning, one is sort of a
cyber battalion where we would have a government screening
process of, you know, taking these down and looking at them.
The other is, has also been raised by testimony this
morning, which is, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom where
you have private society, individuals out there reporting, so
that we use that force multiplier, if you will, of just people
online, if you see something, report it, and then have others
take action on that. Is there a preference?
I realize the scope of this is pretty large. But is there a
preferred approach as to having government do it versus calling
on individuals citizens to be more vigilant? Mr. Gartenstein-
Ross? Doctor?
Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Sir, I think you can do both. And I
think it's best if you have both functioning at once.
The main thing that I would argue for both government and
also civil society activists is that when you look at what ISIS
has done online, it's very innovative. And often our own
efforts aren't as innovative and aren't as strategic.
In terms of strategy, and I think Ambassador Fernandez did
a good job in his testimony of highlighting some areas of
vulnerability for ISIS. I mean, there's a group that is so
invested in its brutality, in its, what I call its winner's
message in my testimony, that once chinks are put in this
armor, once there are clear areas in which they're failing and
not living up to this image of strength, then they actually
very much are in danger of a brand reversal.
I would suggest that one thing we can look to in terms of
bodies of literature is literature being put out by people in
the, who do academic work on business. They're very much an
organization that has a certain brand. And it's a brand that's
working now but it won't always work.
The second thing I'll say in terms of innovativeness, we
have talked about taking down their accounts individually. And
that has a disruptive effect. But, ultimately, they're in an
online environment. We actually have the capability to
literally map every single member of a distribution network,
every single account, and take them all down at once, as
opposed to reporting them individually. That's thinking
innovatively. Let's not take them down one at a time, let's
take them all down.
And Twitter is willing to take down these accounts. They
don't have a good algorithm to take them down. But these
accounts are violating their terms of service. And so I think
that there's an area in which either from the governmental
angle or from a civil society angle, one can help to map these
networks, and you'll have a much more disruptive effect if you
take down the whole network as opposed to one note at a time.
Mr. Lynch. All right. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognized Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, many
people today, both liberal and conservative, say that the
original decision to go into Iraq in 2002 was the biggest
foreign policy mistake in the history of this country. William
Buckley, for instance, said similar words to that shortly
before he passed away. George Will wrote a column saying that
the neoconservatives, who were the strongest advocates of our
war, were really the most--very misnamed people, he said
actually they were the most radical people in this city. And
the more we read about this, the worse it seems to get.
Just yesterday, for instance, I read that the New York
Times had written that most of the leadership of ISIS and most
of its soldiers were former members of the Iraqi Army and that
we made a mistake when we followed our policy of de-
Baathification and disbanding the Iraqi Army shortly after we
started that second war in Iraq. Do you gentlemen think the New
York Times was correct? Are most of the leadership of ISIS
former Iraqi military people?
Anybody? Yes, sir.
Mr. Fernandez. I'm happy to take that. Yes, sir, it seems
like the majority of the leadership are, if you talk about
sheer numbers, have a connection with the Iraqi Army at some
point. There was Islamization process that occurred ini the
last years of Saddam Hussein where the Baathist ideology of the
government was, they allowed Islamists to flourish.
But what causes ISIS to succeed I contend are three
elements. One is the one you mentioned, absolutely Iraq. Two,
Syria. And, three, the rise of social media. When ISIS does its
propaganda in 2013, 2014, it's not telling people to go fight
in Iraq. It's telling people to go fight in Syria because the
Muslims are being killed in Syria.
So, yes, the leadership of ISIS is overwhelmingly Iraqi
with a strong former military component. But the message that
they use, first was about Syria and after June of 2014 is about
the caliphate.
Mr. Duncan. Let me say this, I know some of us are wanting,
some people will want us to go in a big way back into Syria.
Yet, General Petraeus testified a couple of weeks ago at a
Senate hearing that Putin's foreign reserves are less than $200
billion total. And I saw the 60 Minutes report this past Sunday
night about ISIS and it said in that report, and I have the
transcript here, that we're spending $10 million a day, in our
bombing campaign, which has been going on for 14 months, that's
$300 million a month. Apparently over the 14 or 15 months we
have been doing this, we have spent about $4.5 to $5 billion on
this so far.
Yet, the military man said that ISIS has been able to
replace its bed with new recruits. So the estimated number of
enemy figures remains unchanged, 20 to 30,000 last year, 20 to
30,000 this year. David Martin, the CBS correspondent, said so
as long as they can keep bringing fighters in there, are you
just shoveling sand against the tide? And then he ended up his
report saying this, he said some 25,000 American bombs have
been dropped so far, all the firepower and technology of a
superpower, even supersonic stealth aircraft directed against
an enemy in pickup trucks intent on dragging the Middle East
back to the Middle Ages.
I think at some point, since we are over $18 trillion in
debt, at some point, somebody is going to have to start showing
some progress as far as I'm concerned. And you can do anything
to ISIS, the worst punishment that you can come up with. But,
on the other hand, we can't just keep throwing billions and
billions and billions of dollars and not showing any progress.
And, in fact, some people think it's helping to radicalize or
even help recruit troops for ISIS.
At some point, these people in the Middle East are going to
have to start fighting their own wars because we can't afford
to just keep pouring billions or even trillions down these
Middle Eastern rat holes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with Representative
Duncan that we're wasting taxpayer funds by bombing in Syria. I
have seen no good results from that. In fact, you've seen more
Syrians flee. And that sort of goes to my question to you,
Ambassador Fernandez, which, I agree with you, that you say
that social media is not the cause of radicalization, it's an
accelerant. And really the problem is the message. Don't you
think the U.S. bombing in Syria actually gives a lot of
propaganda to ISIL and ISIS?
Mr. Fernandez. Thank you, sir. If you look at the
propaganda, actually U.S. bombing of Syria is not a major
element in ISIS propaganda. It's occasionally featured. It's
not a big element in the propaganda. The number one element in
the propaganda is about building this paradise on Earth,
building the caliphate. Come and join us, come and emigrate,
let's build the beautiful future, you know, like communists or
Nazis talk about the beautiful future that you're building.
But if you look at the propaganda, they talk about America,
the head of the snake. They talk about destroying America. But
very few of their videos actually show U.S. bombing. That's
just not there. There are a handful. But considering the
thousands of videos that they produce, it's a tiny part of what
they show.
Mr. Lieu. So they don't talk about U.S. attacking them or
killing them?
Mr. Fernandez. They talk about the U.S. in general. In
other words, for caliphate jihadist groups, the U.S. is the
enemy. The U.S. is the new Rome. And they were saying that
before we started bombing them. And if we stop tomorrow, they
would continue to say that.
Mr. Lieu. All right. So their message is more about
building the caliphate there?
Mr. Fernandez. And conquering the world, yes.
Mr. Lieu. And do they say conquer the world? Or they just
want their ISIL area?
Mr. Fernandez. Well, they want their ISIL area obviously to
start out with. But the new five dinar gold coin that ISIS
issues, on the back it has a map of the world.
And when the ISIS spokesman explained why the ISIS gold
dinar has the map of the world, they said because that is the
place that the rule of the law has to take place. And he says
specifically it means three places, Constantinople, Istanbul of
the Islamic prophecy, Rome, and America. Those are the three
ones that they talk about. Obviously, this is rhetoric but this
is what they say.
Mr. Lieu. Okay. And your view is U.S. bombs in Syria isn't
really affecting their propaganda?
Mr. Fernandez. It's not a major element of it. It's there.
But it would rank really low in the top themes that they use.
It's not a primary theme in their propaganda.
Mr. Lieu. And does their leadership sort of get upset when
their folks get killed by U.S. bombs?
Mr. Fernandez. They don't tend to talk about that. So
actually it does. Because, obviously, if your message is
[speaking foreign language], the Islamic State is here to stay
and growing. And why is it growing? Because God's permission is
that it is to grow. Anything that shows them as losers,
anything that shows them as going backwards is problematic with
them. So when a person is killed, obviously, they say this
person is a martyr. But they don't usually play up that such
and such a person was killed by the Americans.
Mr. Lieu. Great. Thank you. And then, Ambassador Wallace,
thank you for your public service. I think some of the things
you said I do find alarming. I do not believe that the U.S.
Government should be prohibiting speech based on content. And
if you had the Government sort of refereeing what is propaganda
or not, it becomes very problematic because if we're going to
start shutting down a Twitter account because someone says I
support ISIL, then what happens if someone says, you know, I
support Assad? Sort of a brutal dictator.
Or what if someone says I support the Ku Klux Klan? At some
point, how does the Government determine what message it's
going to shut down and what they're not? And I'm all for what
you do and what the private sector does and what non-profits
do. I just believe that Government ought not be sitting there
deciding what content to shut down or not. And even if we did,
I believe the U.S. Supreme Court would strike it as
unconstitutional.
And so with that, I'll let you have a chance to answer
that. And then I'll yield back.
Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Congressman Lieu. First of all, I
think we would be remiss in saying that it's American bombs.
The President has done a very capable job, in my opinion, of
establishing an Arab coalition that is bombing ISIS. And some
of the horrible deaths that we have seen of soldiers in theater
have been non-Americans, such as the Jordanian pilot that was
shot down and killed. So let's be clear, there are Arab bombs
that are going in there as well as American bombs.
Look, on your point, I think there are a lot of lawyers in
the room. I suffer that affliction as well. I don't think this
is as controversial as you think. We're having a thoughtful
discussion about it. We have had this thoughtful debate for
years about all sorts of speech. And we have concluded some
speech is not acceptable. For example, the Ku Klux Klan, I
don't mean to pick on any particular horribly obnoxious group
that is entitled to speak freely in the United States, but they
get to say I'm a member of the Ku Klux Klan if they want to.
That's not what we're talking about here. We have litigated and
have an entire body of law that says some speech is legitimate,
some is not.
I've offered a framework under the material support area of
what speech should not be legitimate and should be prohibited
in the context of terrorism. And I think that, for example,
just saying look, ISIS, maybe they stand for some good things,
I think that that's a much closer call than saying please go
out and kill for ISIS, please go out and give money to ISIS,
please go out and give your life to ISIS. That should be
prohibited speech. That's what is dominating the Internet.
That's where there are tens of thousands of accounts. And I
think we can thoughtfully have this debate on Capitol Hill. And
your opinion is absolutely, even though I disagree with it, a
legitimate opinion. And let's have that debate. And let's
figure out where we draw the line.
We have done it many times in the course of our law, from
stalking women to abuse to screaming fire in a crowded theater,
to child pornography. Let's have it in the context of
terrorism.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, panel,
for being here today. Very interesting and informative, and I
appreciate the expertise that you bring to the table.
Mr. Purdy, let me begin with you. Can you describe for me a
little bit about the program, the Mirror Image? I understand
that it's something that allows law enforcement to walk in the
shoes of terrorists or something to that effect. Could you
describe that a little further, please?
Mr. Purdy. Yes, the Mirror Image Training to Combat
Terrorism is a program that we designed almost 14 years ago to
allow law enforcement, military, and intelligence to step into
the shoes of a terrorist cell or a network. And the idea behind
that was what Sun Tzu said, you know, if you know the enemy and
you know yourself, you're going to be able to defeat them. And
so what we came up with after a series of interviews with some
individuals, we thought that would be a good training format to
get people to understand, first and foremost, what is it that
these terrorists are trying to do.
One of the things I think we have to do a better job is
getting people to understand what terrorist organizations are
trying to do, when they put a communication online. So through
Mirror Image, we would take a group of usually 40, 50 people,
and for a week to 2 weeks, we would show them by having them
become the terrorists.
So FBI, law enforcement, military, military intelligence,
intelligence folks, so that they could then actually have done
this. Usually they're working against these individuals, but
it's been quite eye-opening for these individuals to see it
from the other side. There's a lot of great lessons that can be
learned by reading what they're putting out, by doing the types
of things that they do, and trying to get people to understand
that mentality so as they combat these individuals, they'll
have a greater understanding and hopefully be able to deal with
the situation.
Mr. Hice. So I take it then from your answer, that you
believe this has been quite beneficial?
Mr. Purdy. I have had military individuals tell me that
when they went to Iraq, that training saved lives. I've had law
enforcement individuals say what we learned in your program
enabled us to not only understand the terrorists, but to be
somewhat predictive in what a terrorist was attempting to do,
so yes, sir.
Mr. Hice. Very good. Let me transition over to you, Mr.
Gartenstein-Ross. What do you think at the end of the day is
actually attracting people to ISIS caliphate?
Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. I think there's multiple things
attracting people to the ISIS caliphate, and I think it's
somewhat different based upon personality and region. ISIS
actually has on some of their web pages a different interface
that you receive depending upon where you're from. So if you're
looking at them and you're a westerner, for some of their pages
you'll get a different page than if you're visiting from the
Middle East.
There's two major themes in their propaganda, though, that
I would point to, even though there are many things that draw
people to them. One theme is their strength. And as I said,
they're extraordinarily brutal, but they're okay with that
because their brutality, beheading people, burning people
alive, this is a sign that they're winning. This is a sign of
how strong they are. That's one element that's very strong in
their propaganda.
A second element, and Charlie Winter writes about this for
the Quilliam Foundation quite well, a British-based think tank,
is that they're building a state. Ambassador Fernandez referred
to that. That's the second aspect of their propaganda, both
destruction and also creation. I think both of those are
vulnerable to disruption. On the one hand, we were talking a
bit about whether the bombing campaign has accomplished
anything or not. Right now ISIS is fighting a ten-front war.
And if you look at the past couple of months, they've
experienced one loss after another. One of their biggest gains
this year, Ramadi is under a lot of pressure, and the odds are
that they will lose it within the next, say, 8 to 10 months.
Mr. Hice. If you don't mind, let me interrupt. I've only
got about a minute left, and just open up a question to each of
you. Do any of you know what the objectives are of our current
administration in terms of their national strategy for
countering violent extremism?
So I take it from that that no one knows what our strategy
is?
Mr. Wallace. The President in his global summit did
identify two areas he was focusing on. We might disagree with
the parameters of that, but he focused on training youth around
the world to promote tolerance and counterextremist ideology at
a young person's level and generation.
Mr. Hice. Promote tolerance, to extremism?
Mr. Wallace. You asked a question about what they're doing.
I'm not taking sides here, sir. I'm giving you----
Mr. Hice. No. I'm just asking is that what you're saying?
Mr. Wallace. I'm saying that's what I understand that the
President's agenda is. I'm giving you an answer to your
question. I'm not in the administration, sir. I'm retired.
Mr. Hice. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is
expired. It's amazing to me that we virtually have no
understanding of our own administration's strategy to deal with
this, and what we do hear of what we believe is quite alarming.
With that I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Chairman. Ambassador Wallace, good to
see you again. It's been a while since we served together in
New York City. One of my first questions to you, sir, you
mentioned the individual that had opened and closed a hundred
accounts on Twitter by a different name. What are you proposing
that Twitter do about it?
Mr. Wallace. Good to see you, Congressman, and thank you
for allowing me to appear before you as well. Look, there was a
classic example--I'm sure some of my colleagues remember
Mujahideen Miski, who was one of the most influential and
prolific online Jihadis. He was a Somali-American, ostensibly
tweeting from Somalia, we believe Iraq, ostensibly killed in a
drone strike a couple months ago, I think guys? He was
incredibly prolific and kept coming back. I don't remember his
handle, but it was Mujahideen Miski 1, take him down;
Mujahideen Miski 2, take him down. And it would rely on people
reporting his reappearance on Twitter. I think that----
Mr. Hurd. But them taking it down, isn't that a success?
Mr. Wallace. Well, only after reporting. I think where
Twitter was failing to act is that if he was coming back with a
similar handle, it shouldn't have had to go through the fairly
elaborate time-consuming reporting process. Twitter should have
said, ah, Miski 2 is up; let's make sure he goes down. Miski 3
is up, and take him down. And I think that's one of the issues
with Twitter that they are not actively policing in an
appropriate manner terrorist content on their site.
Mr. Hurd. So when your organization gets this kind of
information, do you share it directly with Twitter? Do you
share it with Department of Homeland Security? Do you share it
with the FBI? Who do you share it with?
Mr. Wallace. We certainly share it with Twitter, and we go
through a reporting process with Twitter that is somewhat
cumbersome.
One of the things we have called for, I have called for in
this testimony and in previous testimony, is that trusted
reporting status, which would be an accelerated reporting
status, be granted to organizations like ours, the State
Department, some of my colleagues on this panel, so that it
doesn't fall into the really lengthy queue, if you will, of
reporting on Twitter. Twitter has not yet taken that action. We
think that's a problem.
Mr. Hurd. And earlier, I just want to make sure I'm clear.
Were you intimating that social media companies are providing
material support to terrorists?
Mr. Wallace. I'm intimating that we should have that
debate, and I'm glad that you asked the question, and I'm
honored to provide the answer.
Mr. Hurd. So when I was chasing al Qaeda in Pakistan and
Afghanistan in the back alleys, they would do things called
night letters. They would write a letter, leave it on a
doorstep. Were we intimating that the companies that produce
pens and pencils and paper are providing material support to
terrorists?
Mr. Wallace. I've learned over the years never to throw
back a question to a Congressman asking you a question, but I'm
really tempted to do it here. What about a Kalashnikov? What
about a hunting knife? I think that our debate has to say--we
have debated in other contexts--maybe a pencil isn't material
support, but is a hunting knife, is an AK, is an RPG----
Mr. Hurd. I would say that providing an account on a social
media site is not material support. I don't think that's
anywhere close to material support, and if these organizations
are not providing taking these things down, they are working
closely with the Department of Homeland Security, so, you know,
I have to echo the concerns of the gentleman from California
about talking about, you know, yes, it's good to have a
conversation about legitimate speech, but I think we also need
to be careful. You're not a law enforcement organization.
You're not an intelligence organization. The information that
you're getting is valuable and should be shared, but saying
that that's the only game in town is a little scary.
Changing gears, there is a Professor visiting from Spain at
GW, Dr. Javier Lesaca, who has done some very interesting work
on analyzing the social media campaigns of ISIS. They do four
campaigns a day. They are promoting it in about 49 different
languages. My question is, who's out there that is countering
this ideology? And Ambassador, I think it was you. Actually it
was, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. You mentioned about some of these
failures of ISIS. They talk about we have this great
functioning land. Well, it's not really that much. They
encourage young men to come to ISIS to fight the infidel, but
you're more likely to get a bomb dropped on your head or a
bullet in your chest than you are to find excitement in Syria.
This is not just for the Federal Government to get that
message out. It's going to be organizations. It's going to be
our Sunni Arab partners in the region. Who is out there
actually countering that narrative and getting that message
out?
Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. First of all, let me say, sir, that I
agree with that entirely; that it's not just a job for the
Federal Government. You have a variety of centers which are out
there. A new one just opened up in the United Arab Emirates in
Doha, which is a joint project of the United States and the
Emirates. There is also a communication center which has opened
in Nigeria. So I think there are some interesting innovations
that are occurring to try to get the U.S. to work with local
partners.
Secondly, there are civil society organizations, such as
the one that I mentioned before, the Quilliam Foundation, which
really makes an effort to try to push out messages that are
counter to extremism. I think some of the more effective ones
highlight the bad experiences of defectors, people who had gone
over to fight with the Islamic State and found that life was
not all they will thought it was cracked up to be. I think that
those are both important.
A third thing I would mention is that tech companies, in
fact, are starting to get interested in this problem set. If
you look at, and this has been reported openly, Google/YouTube
has helped to finance content providers, including in the
United States, people from the American Muslim community who
have messages that are quite contrary to ISIS' message.
I will highlight one final thing, which is one problem I
have noted in the past, is that ISIS is very good at creating
facts, fabricating facts. It makes itself look stronger than it
actually is. One area where I think the U.S. Government can
play a very good role, is contacting media companies with fact
sheets in order to counteract ISIS' exaggerations. Things like
when they convinced CNN, BBC and others that they controlled
the City of Derna in Libya, which they never did. Being able to
quickly reach out to media contacts and say you've reported
this. ISIS has fabricated this fact. It's untrue. Would be
helpful in just making sure that the mainstream media doesn't
end up echoing ISIS' propaganda.
Mr. Hurd. Excellent. Thank you, sir. I apologize for going
over time, Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. We just have so many people in the queue. You
know so, I appreciate it I know Steve and I are going to have
some more questions, so we will go another round if the other
members are inclined.
We have been talking about, and rightfully so, about the
propaganda about this global caliphate, and it's a Sunni
caliphate, but I've noted that Ayatollah Khamenei will tweet
different things. And so, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, what is the use
of social media from the Shi'ite extremism side? Iran is
establishing a de facto Shi'ite caliphate from Afghanistan
border to the Mediterranei Sea. Are we seeing the same type of
techniques being used with groups like Hezbollah and other
Shi'ite-type militias in maybe Yemen or these places?
Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Yes. We're seeing similar efforts on
the Shia side. Most of the U.S.' focus is on Sunni extremism
Groups. An analyst who I think has done the best work on this
is Phillip Smyth, S-m-y-t-h, who wrote a monograph earlier this
year published by the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, and he has looked extensively at the Shia side. They
also do mobilize people through social media. They also have
Shia foreign fighters who have gone to Syria, and it presents a
similar set of concerns.
The final thing I'll mention there is similar to ISIS, they
also are committing grave atrocities in the theater. While they
have different goals than ISIS, it also is something which
definitely is running counter to U.S. strategic interests and
is causing a major humanitarian problem.
Mr. DeSantis. How has the social media affected terrorism
by Palestinians against Israelis? You look at the intifada at
the beginning of the last decade, yeah, we had the Internet and
stuff, but you didn't have Twitter. You didn't have a lot of
this stuff. Now I know that there's some significant problems
that are going on. Are we seeing evidence that some of the
Palestinian terrorists are using social media?
Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Definitely. There's a few ways in
which social media has a direct impact on the current nascent
intifada that's occurring. One is it's a remarkable mobilizing
tool, a tool that can get people out, and you can have a
campaign that's organized via social media. People can organize
much more quickly than they could previously.
The second thing, one thing that is occurring in this
conflict is people will be out there, for example, throwing
rocks with a cell phone, and they'll be taking photos of what's
happening to them in order to try to make sure that they
capture the moment, and it gets disseminated right away via
social media. So it is a tool that is at the center of how
people are tactically thinking about this current conflict.
Mr. DeSantis. Yeah. Great. And then when someone gets
killed, I know some of the headlines in the New York Times will
say somebody was killed by a rock. They won't say how or what.
But anyway, that's not a discussion for today.
I'm going to yield to Mr. Lynch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move out a
little bit from the tactical discussion we have been having
about social media, and really look at this from a long-term
strategy perspective, if we could for a minute. I spent a lot
of time on this issue. I'm one of the few that have actually
gone in and talked to Assad. It was a few years ago.
The paradox here, and I've also met with all the major
rebel groups, and I just have to say that this idea, this
fiction of a moderate Syrian rebel group, I just don't see it,
not in the terms of moderate in which we in this country regard
it. The rebel groups are all Islamic. Oddly enough, Assad--and
he needs to go. No question about it. There's a consensus
around that, except for Russia, and Iran and Hezbollah--
ironically he provides protection to religious minorities. And
the people that we're trying to help, and I've met with them in
refugee camps in Gaziantep and Istanbul, and they're Islamists,
and they want to create an Islamic republic, and to various
degrees they want to you push an Islamic model on the
population there. So it provides a real dilemma for us.
I heard some testimony yesterday from Secretary of Defense
Ash Carter and also our new head of the Joint Chiefs General
Dunford. They were talking about Sergeant Wheeler, who had been
killed recently--God bless him and his family--they were
talking about the possibility of putting boots on the ground to
some extent for various purposes. And, you know, if you go back
to what Petraeus talked about in Iraq in terms of the surge,
and giving the Iraqis an opportunity there, his
counterinsurgency program, which was very successful until we
handed off our responsibility, that was the weak link in his
program, in the program. I see it as the weak link in any
program that we have with Syria.
When you look at Syria, let's just say that Assad goes,
either by negotiation or by force, who do we hand off to? And
I'm not saying that rhetorically. I'm asking you who do we hand
off to? Because I met with all the players there, and I mean, I
don't think anyone is there, of any significant strength that
we could say, okay, we have killed the bad guys, if that's what
we say, or we have taken out Assad. Here you go. I don't see
anybody in the region now who could actually step in and do
that job.
So if you're going to envision using boots on the ground,
you ought to have an exit strategy going in, and I just don't
see anybody we can hand off to, and I think we would be sucked
into a program where we would have to try to create--this is
Iraq 2.0. We would have to create the institutions to guide
that country for the next 10, 15, 20 years.
So I know you weren't hired to do this job, but you all
spend time on this. If you could just share your thoughts on
that whole question with me, that would be great. Mr. Wallace?
Mr. Wallace. Thank you for your thoughts. I would say that
Assad isn't doing the job. That's one thing that we do have to
remember. I mean, obviously Syria is an area of incredible
turmoil and otherwise, and on top of him not doing the job
because of the incredible migration problem, the human
suffering, the toll that's taken there, he is the proxy of
Iran.
And I think we have somewhat overlooked it. Not to any
intention, I don't want to speak for my colleagues, but the
State Department and I think all of us still view Iran as the
number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. I think the
growth of Iranian hegemony in the region has stoked the
sectarian flames. So I think we have a double problem, if you
will.
Assad isn't the solution. Whether or not he was before,
it's beyond, we don't get a do-over; it's whatever it is now,
and I think we can do much better in finding a better solution
than Assad and the human suffering that's taking there. And
hopefully not continue to empower the Iranian regime, which I
think has been regrettably on the march since the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action and its proxies in Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq and now Yemen.
So I think that the concern is Iran and the number of Shia
and the destabilizing influence of Iran throughout the region
that is stoking sectarian conflict and radicalizing a lot of
the Sunnis. Let's remember that the initial rebellion against
Assad was actually pretty secular. It was a secular movement
against Assad, but that was a missed opportunity.
Mr. Lynch. Doctor, I know you wanted to say something.
Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Definitely. I think your question is
a very important one, and that's why I mentioned this issue of
Syria in my testimony. I think that fundamentally what we're
doing in Syria and what we do in Syria is linked to our ability
to communicate effectively on these issues related to
extremism.
I agree with the way that you framed it, very strongly. And
I think that in addition to the fact that these groups are not
what we would regard as moderates, we should also note that the
degree to which al Qaeda is strong enough on the ground, to
really dominate Syrian factions whom we'd otherwise consider to
be acceptable. So in the LA Times on October the 12th, you have
an individual Major Fares Bayoush, who is the commander of
Fursan al Haq, which is a group we regard as moderate, who said
that some level of coordination with al Qaeda-style groups was
unavoidable.
The quote in the LA Times is: ``There is something
misunderstood by world powers. We have to work with Nusra Front
and other groups to fight the regime in Daesh. And this is
someone who we're supporting. That reenforces your point about
the rebels, and we have to fundamentally understand that.
TOW missiles have used--American-provided TOW missiles--
have been used to help these groups advance. Now let me be
clear. It's not because the United States is trying to help bad
people. I think that the U.S. tends to be on the side of the
angels, but we're very blunderingly on the side of the angels.
And i think that we wanted to back this uprising against Assad,
given that he is an awful dictator; but then when the facts on
the ground revealed just how much extremism factions were
dominating the battle space, we didn't adapt. Our adaptation
was to go ahead and help those extremist factions to gain
ground.
In addition to the idea of boots on the ground being
problematic for the reasons that you articulated, I think it is
important to look into our current policies. As I said,
following the Russian bombing, U.S. officials were talking
about how they considered our program of supporting rebels
through the CIA to be successful. And when they looked at rebel
successes, they were pointing to areas where the Nusra Front
gained ground.
If we are backing rebels to help al Qaeda to make advances,
we can't very credibly say to Saudi Arabia, to Qatar, to
Turkey, now you guys cant support them because we are
indirectly, not directly, but we're doing the same thing. And I
think that's something which is very much worth looking into,
including the question of whether these programs violate U.S.
law and the question of whether Congress has been given
accurate information on what the rebel groups that we're
supporting are doing.
Mr. Lynch. I'm not sure--Ambassador would you mind?
Mr. DeSantis. No.
Mr. Lynch. Ambassador Fernandez.
Mr. Fernandez. I would make two points. I think your
concerns are well-stated. There's a shocking reality, and that
is that for millions of Sunni Arab Muslims in that area of
Syria and Iraq, ISIS and ISIS rule seems as the least bad
option considering the alternatives. That's a huge problem for
U.S. foreign policy.
And on the rebels, on the moderate rebels, you're right.
There was a golden opportunity earlier this year when Jaish al-
Fatah, the Conquest Army supported by the Qataris and the
Saudis took over most of the province of Idlib. This is a
province that had a Christian minority and a Druze minority, so
it was a golden opportunity for them to prove their tolerance.
And the Christian minority has ceased to exist. They're gone.
And the Druze minority was forced to convert to Islam. The
rhetoric was a little less nasty, a little less hard-edged than
ISIS, but the reality was not much different.
Mr. Lynch. All right. Mr. Purdy?
Mr. Purdy. I think one of the problems we have is when the
United States removes leaders, and there's kind of a historical
list in this region from Egypt, kind of Mubarak; Yemen, Salah;
Libya, Qadhafi, and now we're talking about removing or trying
to push out the President of Syria. None of these individuals
are angels, and none of these individuals are people that our
government would want to truly be partnered with because of
human rights and all kinds of other things that these
individuals have done.
But when we push one of these leaders out, there always
seems to be a void that's created. And what we constantly see
is whether it's AQAP or al Qaeda or ISIS, they step right into
that void that we have had a hand in kind of creating. And it
causes us long-term problems because now as we try to look and
gain coalition partners and other people, there are other
geopolitical reasons maybe why somebody might want to go in and
do something or hold back because we have created a mess.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr.
Chairman, I went way over time. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. No problem. I'd like to thank our witnesses
for taking the time to appear before us today. If there's no
further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]