U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–254 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–443

TERRORISM: RADICAL ISLAMIC INFLUENCE OF

CHAPLAINCY OF THE U.S. MILITARY AND PRISONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 14, 2003

Serial No. J–108–44

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

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 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

STEPHEN HIGGINS, Majority Chief Counsel 

DAVID HANTMAN, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 3

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52

Schumer, Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ..................... 4

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 7

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81

WITNESSES 

Abell, Charles S., Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. ............................................... 10

Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C. ...... 12

Pistole, John S., Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C. ............................................................ 8

Rogers, Paul E., President, American Correctional Chaplains Association, 

Waupun, Wisconsin, accompanied by A.J. Sabree, Treasurer, American Correctional Chaplains Association, Atlanta, Georgia ............................................ 31

Waller, Michael, Annenberg Professor of International Communication, Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C. ........................................................... 29

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Abell, Charles S., Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ........... 43

Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, Leesburg, Virginia, statement ...................................................................................................................... 50

Lappin, Harley G., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 53

Luque, Nancy, Luque Sheinbach LLP, Washington, D.C., statement and attachment ............................................................................................................... 64

North American Islamic Trust, Inc., M. Naziruddin Ali, General Manager, 

Burr Ridge, Illinois, letter and attachment ....................................................... 65

Pistole, John S., Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ......................... 68

Rogers, Paul E., President, American Correctional Chaplains Association, 

Waupun, Wisoconsin, prepared statement and attachment ............................. 73

Waller, Michael, Annenberg Professor of International Communication, Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C., prepared statement and attachment ...................................................................................................................... 84

(1)

TERRORISM: RADICAL ISLAMIC INFLUENCE 

OF CHAPLAINCY OF THE U.S. MILITARY 

AND PRISONS 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY AND HOMELAND

SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Kyl, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Kyl, Sessions, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Chairman KYL. Welcome. This hearing of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security will come to order. I thank you all for being here this morning for what I hope will be a very informative hearing. Let me 

make a brief opening statement, indicate who our witnesses today 

will be, and then call on Vice Chairman, Senator Feinstein. 

In the 2 years since September 11, there have been numerous 

hearings, reports, and studies by Congress and outside experts. 

Many have focused on examining what led to our vulnerability on 

September 11 and what processes need to be reviewed or laws 

changed to avoid a repeat of that tragic day. 

In reviewing the record of these hearings and reports, a clear picture emerges of how terrorists exploit a free society like the United 

States to conduct the wide range of activities necessary for effective 

terror operations. The relationship between these terrorists and 

foreign-based sponsors, states, and global actors also emerges and 

strongly suggests that the war on terror at home and the one 

abroad are in the deepest sense one and the same. 

This seems self-evident, except for the fact that as a whole we 

do not approach it this way either analytically or operationally. 

Evidence urges that we begin doing so immediately, not least because the enemy long ago determined these fronts to be one war. 

While the above hearing and report process was proceeding 

apace, so were two other things: one the activities of terror groups, 

their networks and supporters here and abroad, and, two, the ongoing efforts of U.S. foreign and domestic intelligence and enforceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
2

ment to monitor, interdict, and prosecute terrorists and their support networks. 

If one engages in this sort of integrated analysis long enough, 

one could begin to anticipate, for example, what has emerged in the 

headlines in recent weeks in regard to both the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Prison chaplains. 

Recent hearings by the Subcommittee on Terrorism have exposed 

the growing dominance of a radical sect of Islam in the United 

States. This sect, commonly referred to as Wahhabism, preaches 

jihad against Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not tow the 

Wahhabi line. All 19 of the September 11 hijackers were followers 

of Wahhabism, as is Osama bin Laden. 

This violent perversion of Islamic faith has been responsible for 

terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, both Muslim and nonMuslim, all over the world. There have been an increasing number 

of instances in which Wahhabists have successfully penetrated key 

U.S. institutions, such as the miliary and the our prison system. 

As several recent media reports have noted, the two groups that 

accredit and recommend Muslim chaplains to the military—the 

Graduate School of Islamic and Social Science and an organization 

under the umbrella of the American Muslim Foundation—have 

long been suspected of links to terrorist organizations by the Federal Government. Another group accused of ties to Islamic extremists, the Islamic Society of North America, refers Muslim clerics to 

the Bureau of Prisons. 

Earlier this month, one of the key architects of the U.S. military’s chaplain program, Abdurahman Alamoudi, was arrested and 

charged with an illegal relationship with Libya, long a state sponsor of terror. Authorities have also charged Captain James Yee, a 

Muslim clergyman who was once stationed at Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba, with two counts of mishandling classified information. 

Additionally, the New York State prison system promoted a Muslim cleric to a position that allowed him to supervise the hiring and 

firing of all prison chaplains. He was later removed from his job 

when officials discovered he was an Al-Qaeda sympathizer who incited prisoners against America. 

Jose Padilla, a terrorist accused of trying to build a dirty bomb 

to unleash in the United States, was exposed to radical Islam in 

the U.S. prison system. Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, 

was converted to fundamentalist Islam while serving time in a 

British prison. 

Today’s hearing is the third in a series to examine terrorist ideology, support networks, and state sponsorship. As I said at the 

last hearing, to defeat the terrorists, we must understand their 

goals, their resources, and their methods, just as well as they understand our system of freedom and how to exploit that for their 

terrible purposes. In other words, we have got to continue to connect the dots. 

Today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony from the FBI, the 

Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Prisons. To connect the 

dots, the Subcommittee will hear from Dr. Michael Waller, 

Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics. Dr. Waller will testify, among other things, 

to these three important points: one, foreign states and movements 

3

have been financing the promotion of radical political Islam within 

America’s armed forces and prisons. Two, this radical Islam 

preaches extreme intolerance and hatred of American society, culture, government, and the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and it seeks the ultimate overthrow of the Constitution. 

Three, terrorists have exploited America’s religious tolerance, and 

the chaplain programs in particular, as key elements of infiltrating 

the military and the prisons. 

In addition, we will hear from Mr. Paul Rogers, who is President 

of the American Correctional Chaplains Association, and he will be 

accompanied by Mr. A. J. Sabree, Treasurer of the American Correctional Chaplains Association. 

I want to thank Senator Feinstein, and also Senator Schumer 

and their staff, for their work in helping to prepare for this hearing. And at this time, before calling upon the first panel, I would 

ask Senator Feinstein to make any opening remarks that she has. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for holding this hearing. 

I believe there is cause for concern. I don’t think we should jump 

to conclusions. I certainly welcome this hearing as a fact-finding 

hearing. I think there are some cases that have been made public 

that cause concern, and also provide a rationale for this hearing. 

For example, we can look to the recent dismissal of Imam Warith 

Deen Umar, the former head Muslim chaplain for New York Prisons, who abused his position to promote Islamic radicalism there. 

According to Prison Legal News, Umar stated that prison, quote, 

‘‘is the perfect recruitment and training ground for radicalism and 

the Islamic religion,’’ end quote. That also gives us cause to take 

this look. He said that the September 11 hijackers should be honored as martyrs. 

We should also note the fact that Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, 

was converted to Islam by a radical imam in a British prison, and 

there is evidence that Jose Padilla, who was allegedly sent to the 

United States to detonate a dirty bomb, was exposed to Islam during his many stints in American prisons. 

In the U.S. military, there are 4,800 chaplains, 12 of whom are 

Muslim. I have seen no suggestion that, other than Captain Yee, 

any of these individuals is promoting radical Islamic beliefs or has 

any links whatsoever to terrorism. However, I understand that the 

military relies on two groups to certify Islamic chaplains—the Islamic Society of North America, as you have mentioned, and the 

American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. 

I also understand that some have raised concerns about both of 

these groups. So I would like to inquire, and I believe you do as 

well, Mr. Chairman, why the military uses the ISNA and the AMF 

to certify Islamic chaplains and if there is any reason not to. 

In addition, I believe that most U.S. military Islamic chaplains 

were trained at the Graduate School for Islamic Social Sciences in 

Leesburg, Virginia. This graduate school has been raided by United 

States Customs as part of an investigation into money being funneled to Al-Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups. While it is 

4

true that no charges have been filed in connection with this raid, 

it perhaps does raise some questions about the hiring of chaplains 

trained at the school. 

In the Federal prison system, there are 231 full-time civil service 

prison chaplains, 10 of them Muslim. Again, I have seen no suggestion that any of these individuals is promoting radical Islamic beliefs or has any links whatsoever to terrorism. 

However, we know that several of these individuals in the Federal prison system were sponsored by ISNA, as well as the American Muslim Council. I would like to know why the Bureau of Prisons uses these groups to sponsor prospective Islamic chaplains and 

if any reason exists to use other groups. 

Mr. Chairman, as you suggested, there are a number of questions that have emerged about how the United States military and 

Federal prisons select chaplains and who sponsors those individuals. So I hope that the witnesses today will help us answer these 

questions. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein. You hit 

the nail right on the head with the questions you have asked and, 

of course, we know that those are questions that the panel will 

want to address. 

Senator Schumer, would you like to make an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. I would, Mr. Chairman. First, let 

me thank you and Senator Feinstein for your leadership on this 

issue and making sure that we find out the answers to the questions that you and my friend from California have asked. 

As we all know, the hearings come at a crucial time, as we continue to fight the war on terror, and I am glad that we have a diverse roster of witnesses with us here today on this important subject. Let me stress, I would like to hear all the sides to this. I know 

you have made efforts to invite all sides and some people have refused to come, but we are still making efforts to get everybody to 

come and answer questions, which I appreciate. 

Generations of immigrants dating back to the first Americans 

have come to this land seeking to escape religious persecution, and 

we have honored this tradition by making freedom of worship one 

of our Nation’s most sacred rights. Seven months ago, I wrote letters to the Inspectors General of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and 

the Department of Defense because I feared that at least when it 

came to those who practice Islam in the prisons and the military, 

those rights could be in danger. 

I had discovered that the few groups charged with certifying 

Muslim chaplains in these institutions had several disturbing ties 

to a puritanical and intolerant form of Islam known as Wahhabism. 

The official state religion in Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism also provides part of Al-Qaeda’s ideological foundation. 

Far from endorsing the pluralistic approach to religious belief 

that we all hold dear, Wahhabism espouses an extremist, antiWestern, exclusionary religious doctrine, and denigrates other 

faiths, be they other forms of Islamic belief such as moderate 

Sunni, Shia, and Sufi Islam, or Christianity or Judaism. 

5

I became concerned that these other forms of Islamic belief, 

peaceful, inclusive, spiritual ideals held by the majority of American Muslims, were not being given an opportunity to express 

themselves. So I asked the inspectors general to investigate the 

groups responsible for certifying the military and prison chaplains, 

and I told them in my letters that my own preliminary digging had 

uncovered some disturbing results. 

One group, the ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, had 

on its governing board a man named Siraj Wahaj. Mr. Wahaj is an 

unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing 

that the FBI now believes was master-minded by one of Osama bin 

Laden’s top lieutenants. Why such a man would remain on the 

board for many years afterwards raises a whole lot of questions. 

Another, the Graduate School for Islamic Social Sciences, is 

under investigation, and I understand the investigation is continuing, for terrorist financing. And the third, the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, is a sub-group of 

the American Muslim Foundation, which is also under investigation for terrorist financing. They have the same 501(c)(3) number, 

and that means that the subsidiary group says it is doing the same 

thing that the parent group does. 

Within a few weeks of having sent my letters, I received assurances from both inspectors general that they were examining the 

situation and would get back to me. Well, as I have said earlier, 

that was more than 6 months ago and to this day, despite numerous follow-up attempts, I have no idea of what has become of their 

efforts. 

I want to be clear here. I am not saying these groups are filled 

with terrorists. Certainly not every member of the group is a terrorist. I have an enduring respect for the overwhelming majority 

of American Muslims, who are peaceful, hard-working, and patriotic. 

Just this summer, my family and I took a trip to Spain, where 

we visited a large number of the old Moorish mosques, and the essential peacefulness and tranquility of the Muslim religion was apparent in the architecture, the beliefs, and the history that we 

studied there. 

I am saying, however, that there is enough evidence to warrant 

an investigation of these groups to assess their pluralistic credentials and determine whether they should be advising, and certainly 

should be advising exclusively the Pentagon and the Bureau of 

Prisons on who should provide spiritual guidance to American soldiers and inmates. 

In the 6 months since I have made this request, the case for an 

investigation has grown stronger, not weaker. News reports and experts who have testified before this Committee suggest that discrimination against Shia prisoners in Federal institutions is rampant and that Wahhabi literature is readily available behind prison 

walls. 

Stephen Schwartz, the author of Two Faces of Islam, says Shia 

prisoners are unable to worship freely and may fear for their safety 

while incarcerated. We have heard of similar situations in New 

York State prisons incidentally, Mr. Chairman. According to Musin 

Alidina of the Alkowi Islamic Center in New York, Shia prisoners 

6

send the mosque stacks of letters every month complaining of mistreatment. That is pretty serious. 

Steven Emerson, the head of the Investigative Project, says 

Wahhabi literature makes its way into prison libraries, courtesy of 

the Saudi-backed Al-Haramain Foundation. 

In June, the websites for the Navy and Air Force chaplains were 

found to have links to IslamWorld.net, a website that espouses 

Wahhabism. The site contained links to lectures by fundamental 

clerics, some of whom advocate jihad against the United States and 

denigrate Christianity and Judaism as forms of disbelief. 

All of this seems to point in the direction of our worst fears. 

Rather than encouraging a pluralistic environment for Islamic belief, the chaplains program was promoting only a specific, narrow, 

and exclusionary agenda. And then on September 10, one Muslim 

military chaplain, Captain James Yee, was detained for having 

classified documents about operations at Camp X-Ray. We don’t 

know the full details of the investigation of Captain Yee, but he 

was arrested and charged last week, and more serious charges may 

be forthcoming. 

Almost lost in the tumult surrounding Yee’s detention was another far more stunning revelation. In 2001, another Muslim military chaplain, Abdul Mohammed, traveled to Saudi Arabia for the 

haj with a number of other Muslim U.S. service members on a trip 

that was fully paid for by the World Muslim League. The World 

Muslim League is a known Saudi organization dedicated to front 

Wahhabism, and in 1996 the CIA identified it as a front for AlQaeda. What is such a group doing sponsoring American soldiers 

to go on a haj. Go on a haj, great. Why this group, and what happened there? 

So it boggles my mind that someone the CIA identified as a front 

for Al-Qaeda would be allowed to pay for travel expenses of some 

of our active soldiers. Who knows who had access to our loyal service members while they were in Saudi Arabia. 

Then there is more bad news coming from associates of the chaplains program. On September 30, the FBI arrested Abdurahman 

Alamoudi, the man responsible for starting the military’s Muslim 

chaplain program, charging him with violating the Libya Sanctions 

Act. 

Despite all of these developments, and despite all of the connections between Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, and the organizations involved in the Muslim chaplain programs, I have not heard back 

from either the Pentagon or the Bureau of Prisons about the status 

of the investigations I requested over 6 months ago. 

We live in a post-9/11 world. Everyone knows that. It is a world 

in which terrible events have taught us, taught my city, people I 

know, and myself, of course, that you can’t be too careful. It is a 

world in which certain groups are sworn enemies of our pluralistic 

way of life, and it is a world in which we now know that incitement 

breeds hate that can sometimes give way to violence. 

Does the evidence show that the organizations that endorse Muslim chaplains for our military and prisons are part of this movement? No, but evidence and revelations over the last 6 months 

show that there has been a lot of smoke surrounding these groups, 

and the IGs of Prisons and the military ought to find out whether 

7

there is fire. At the very least, an investigation is warranted, and 

we sit here waiting and I at least sit here wondering why that is 

not occurring, at least in terms of the information that I have been 

given. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer. 

Senator SESSIONS.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I salute you for 

your strong leadership and consistent leadership on this issue to 

deal openly and honestly with a problem that is very real. I know 

none of us enjoys the prospect of confronting the question of chaplains. It is something we would prefer not to deal with, but it is 

a very real problem, as evidence has shown us. 

I have some remarks that I would put in the record, Mr. Chairman, but I would note that, as I understand it, in the appointment 

of a chaplain they have to be endorsed by a religious organization 

of some kind. That endorsement is critical to the maintaining of 

their ability to be a chaplain. I have a Methodist friend who is a 

chaplain. He maintains his connection with the United Methodist 

Church. If he loses that, he probably would lose his ability to be 

a chaplain. 

So does that group who endorses have the ability to control or 

influence in a way that may be contrary to the interests of this 

country? I think we have a right to ask that and I look forward to 

the hearing. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. 

Just as a preliminary matter, to show just how this terrorism 

can reach every one of us, we noted the 1-year anniversary of the 

Bali bombing just a year ago. I would note with sadness that Sunday was the first anniversary of Professor Mike Waller’s cousin’s 

death, Ed Waller, who was killed in the Bali bombing last year. I 

hope that after the first panel, you will be interested in the testimony that Professor Waller and the other panelists will provide in 

the second panel to help paint the picture here of what we are trying to deal with. 

With that, let me introduce the panel that will first testify. John 

Pistole began his career with the FBI in 1983, and since that time 

he has held a number of important positions in the FBI, including 

Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the FBI’s Boston office. In 

September 2003, Mr. Pistole was appointed Assistant Director of 

the Counterterrorism Division. That is obviously the point of his 

testifying here today, because in that position he is responsible for 

directing the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts. 

Charles Abell, with the Department of Defense, was appointed by 

the President as Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness on November 15, 2002. He is the primary 

assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, providing staff advice to the Secretary of Defense and 

Deputy Secretary of Defense. Before joining the Defense Department, Mr. Abell served as a professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and was lead staffer for the Subcommittee on Personnel. He entered active-duty service as an enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

listed soldier and concluded his Army career by retiring as a lieutenant colonel. 

Director Harley Lappin, of the Bureau of Prisons, joined the Bureau of Prisons in 1985. He began his career as a correctional 

treatment specialist at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas, and held a variety of positions at eight different Bureau of Prisons locations around the country. In July of 2001, Mr. 

Lappin was promoted to Regional Director for the Bureau’s Mid-Atlantic Region and became the Bureau’s seventh director on April 4 

of this year. 

Clearly, we have the people who can answer the questions that 

have been provided here and I am delighted to welcome all of you 

to be with us today. I thank you very much. 

John Pistole, we will start with you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. PISTOLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. PISTOLE. Good morning, Chairman Kyl. Thank you. Vice 

Chair Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Senator Sessions, 

thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning to talk about 

a couple of things: first, the FBI’s role, in close coordination with 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in the prevention of terrorist recruiting within the Federal Bureau of Prisons system, and, second, 

as to the FBI’s role, in concert with the Department of Defense, in 

the assessment of the translators and chaplaincy program within 

the Department of Defense as to the ramifications of what that 

may mean from a counterterrorism perspective. 

As the Subcommittee is well aware, the FBI has changed our 

focus following the events of September 11, where we have made 

counterterrorism our top priority and redirected resources accordingly. The emphasis has been placed on inteligence, with prevention of future terror attacks as our overriding goal. 

Counterterrorism investigations have become intelligence-driven, 

meaning that the criminal investigations into terrorist activity are 

considered tools to achieve disruption, dismantlement, and prevention. The collective assessment of the intelligence community, including the FBI, is that Al-Qaeda remains the greatest terrorist 

threat to the United States and our allies’ interests around the 

world. We believe Al-Qaeda is seeking to recruit individuals within 

the United States, as demonstrated by their training manuals and 

detainee interviews. 

Some of these terrorists seek to exploit our freedom to exercise 

religion, we believe, to their advantage by using radical forms of 

Islam to recruit operatives. Unfortunately, U.S. correctional institutions are a viable venue for such radicalization and recruitment. 

This not something new. Other extremist groups have also followed this blueprint. Since 1979, the Bureau of Prisons, along with 

the FBI, have been aware of the Aryan Nation, a violent neo-Nazi 

white supremacist organization that has been engaged in prison recruiting. It is an important aspect of the Aryan Nation’s agenda, 

given that many of its members are serving lengthy prison sentences. 

9

The Aryan Nation conducts extensive prison outreach through 

correspondence from area chapter members. Their leaders visit 

prison facilities specifically for the purpose of recruiting members, 

promoting racial intolerance and hatred, and spreading neo-Nazi 

propaganda. Terrorist sympathizers, we believe, do the same. 

Senator Feinstein mentioned one such instance involving Warith 

Deen Umar, the former administrative chaplain for the State of 

New York Department of Corrections. A radical Muslim, Umar denied prisoners access to mainstream imams and materials. He 

sought to incite prisoners against America, preaching that the 9/11 

hijackers should be remembered as martyrs and heroes. Umar has 

since been banned from entering the New York State prisons and 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

To assist in ferreting out potential radicalization issues within 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons system, the Bureau of Prisons maintains a presence on the FBI’s National Joint Terrorism Task Force 

here in Washington. 

Recruitment of inmates, we believe, within the prison system will 

continue to be a problem throughout our country. Inmates are often 

ostracized, abandoned by, or isolated from their family and friends, 

leaving them susceptible to recruitment. Membership in the various radical groups offer inmates protection, positions of influence, 

and a network they can correspond with both inside and outside of 

prison. Several examples have been mentioned here this morning 

already. 

Turning to the Guantanamo Bay issue, the FBI is working directly with the Department of Defense on the issues surrounding 

the recent arrest or a translator on July 23 in Jacksonville, a chaplain on September 10, and another translator in Boston on September 29. The FBI considers these matters to be potentially serious breaches of national security and will continue to work jointly 

with the Department of Defense in order to successfully resolve 

these matters and limit the damage they may have caused. 

The FBI is also working with DOD and BOP to assess the mechanisms and protocols by which chaplains and translators are vetted 

for employment, as has been mentioned. In addition, the FBI is 

evaluating the protocols for ongoing security assessments of such 

employees during sensitive assignments, such as more frequent 

polygraph examinations. 

In conclusion, we all recognize that terrorism represents a continuing global problem. Part of the solution, we believe, is grounded 

in what we have experienced since September 11, which is unprecedented domestic and international cooperation and coordination. 

The threat terrorism poses must always be considered imminent. 

We must constantly look at improving ways to gather, analyze, and 

disseminate intelligence. In forging partnerships with local, State 

and Federal law enforcement and correctional agencies, the FBI 

has made considerable progress toward achieving and implementing these goals. 

Again, Chairman Kyl, Vice Chair Feinstein, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pistole appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much, Mr. Pistole. 

10

Charles Abell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. ABELL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. ABELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I would like to talk to you today about officership and professionalism in our armed forces. There is no aspect of our officer 

corps more central to the success of the U.S. military, and this is 

true whether the officer be an infantryman, an aviator, a chaplain, 

doctor, or lawyer. 

The levels of integrity and personal conduct required of an officer 

are high, and with good reason. Officers may be required to make 

decisions affecting millions of dollars. More importantly, their judgment and decisions may mean the difference between life and 

death for the troops with whom they serve. A ship’s captain literally holds the crew’s fate in his or her hands, while a lawyer intheater reviewing the legality of proposed target selections during 

a ground campaign plays similarly a key role in the ultimate success. 

Active-duty officers come from a variety of commissioning 

sources, including our service academies, the Reserve Officer Training Corps programs at colleges and universities, the officer candidate schools or officer training schools of the services, and, for 

some, direct appointments, especially for physicians, attorneys and 

chaplains. 

These civilian professionals are assessed directly into the officer 

corps and then attend training that focuses on their role as commissioned officers. Each military department has a chaplains corps, 

comprised of highly qualified men and women who become members of the armed forces to minister to service members and their 

families. 

Chaplains are commissioned officers. They take the same oath to 

support and defend the Constitution as their doctor, lawyer, or line 

officer peers. My emphasis on this point is that the characteristics 

of an officer is by no means intended to minimize the importance 

of the professional training and religious certification which chaplain candidates must complete. I simply want to focus on the fact 

that chaplains, like members of the professions of law and medicine, must initially meet the very high standards of commissioned 

military service. The chaplain’s commission is, in fact, a discretionary appointment based as much on his or her officership qualities as on their ministerial credentialing. 

There are basically three ways in which our system ensures that 

officers are assessed and retained based on their ability to meet 

standards. These are: professional credentialing, security clearances, and, once the officer is on active duty, monitoring of his or 

her performance. I am aware that the issue of credentialing is of 

particular interest today and I want to begin with a review of that 

process. 

To ensure quality, a college degree is a fundamental requirement 

for joining the officer corps. In addition to educational requirements, the services employ a variety of assessments to qualify candidates for overall commissioning standards, as well as for assignVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
11

ment within specialties which require particular aptitudes, such as 

nuclear engineering or aviation. 

The military system for procurement and training of commissioned officers is designed to obtain individuals of high quality. In 

the case of professions such as law, medicine and theology, there 

are additional credentialing requirements. These are not instead of, 

but in addition to the standards required of any officer. 

We began revising the directive for credentialing chaplains almost a year ago. This morning, I signed a memorandum that puts 

part of that revision into effect, while we continue to staff and coordinate and get the legal checks on the entire memorandum. This 

new guidance seeks to clarify several Defense policies concerning 

prospective chaplains, and in particular ensures that the Department of Defense stays out of the business of approving religious organizations. 

One standard for a qualifying organization begins with the evaluation already defined by the Federal Government in awarding Internal Revenue Service 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Following the 

notification of the IRS 501(c)(3) status, we verify that the organization supports a lay constituency and is prepared to submit a qualified applicant for consideration. 

Finally, and most importantly, we do a thorough background investigation of the individual. I will turn to the security process in 

just a moment, but I want to mention the last standard required 

by the directive, and that is that a chaplain candidate must be willing to provide a personal affirmation to support the First Amendment rights of the entire population—that is, military members 

and their dependents—regardless of the chaplain’s faith or that of 

the individual the chaplain serves. 

As with all officers, the security screening of officer candidates 

is no less thorough than the review of their educational and professional credentials. Primary vehicles are the national agency check 

and a local agency check and a credit report, all conducted through 

the FBI and local agencies. More detailed reports are completed as 

indicated on a case-by-case basis. Applicants must also complete a 

personnel security questionnaire and are required to be able to 

hold a secret clearance in order to receive their commission. Services verify citizenship and perform medical screening and evaluations to determine overall fitness to serve. 

Finally, once on active duty, all officers, all militiary personnel, 

are continuously monitored in three ways. There is an ongoing dayto-day evaluation by their supervisor. There are annual performance evaluations and the commander’s oversight of his or her operation. Each of these avenues, while possibly low-key and on a dayto-day basis, is a critical link in the chain of responsibility for enforcing performance standards. 

To our regret, we know that pre-employment screening is not 

fool-proof, whether it takes place in the public or the private sector. 

Military services strive to enforce the highest standards of personal 

conduct and performance by both officers and enlisted personnel. 

Despite the best efforts of leadership, we are all aware of examples where individuals in all military specialties fall short. It may 

be in relation to official duties, as in the theft of Government propVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
12

erty or professional negligence by a physican or an engineer, or it 

might be an off-duty offense such as an assault or a burglary. 

While every such case is a tragedy for both the individual and 

the institutions, we believe our system is designed to minimize 

these instances and to maintain the highest standards of personal 

ethics and behavior which we require. 

People continue to be the most vital resource of the Department 

of Defense. Certainly, they are the most critical component of our 

readiness. We place intense demands on them. They are highly motivated, highly skilled professional service members. Currently, we 

have a force of over 2.3 million men and women serving around the 

world who have each sworn to protect our freedoms with their 

lives, if necessary. Over 4,000 of these are military chaplains who 

serve with our troops everyday. 

The reputation and excellence of the United States armed forces 

has been earned. We are the best in the world, and our allies, 

friends and neighbors strive to emulate the professionalism of our 

force. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to publicly recognize the men and women who serve so proudly. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abell appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much, Mr. Abell. 

Mr. Lappin, please. 

STATEMENT OF HARLEY G. LAPPIN, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Good morning, Chairman Kyl and members of the 

Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss 

the efforts the Federal Bureau of Prisons has taken to ensure we 

are preventing the recruitment of terrorists and extremists in our 

Federal prisons. 

We understand the importance of controlling and preventing the 

recruitment of inmates into terrorism. We also acknowledge that 

this is an evolving issue, especially as it relates to relationships between terrorism, certain radical or extremist ideologies, and the 

penchant of those who adhere to these ideologies to recruit others 

to their position. We continue to evaluate our policies and practices, and are certainly open to recommendations to make improvements in this area. 

We are aware of the particular vulnerabilities that inmates have 

to being recruited and converted to be terrorists, and we are very 

aware of the need to guard against the spread of terrorist or extremist ideas in Federal prisons. 

The Bureau of playing a significant role in our Nation’s war on 

terrorism. Our practices in institution security and inmate management are geared toward the prevention of violence, criminal behavior, disruptive behavior, or other threats to institution security and 

public safety, including the radicalization of inmates. 

We have taken a number of measures over the last several years 

to ensure we are preventing disruption in our facilities, to include 

eliminating most inmate organizations in order to control the influence that outside entities have on Federal inmates, enhancing our 

information and monitoring systems, enhancing our intelligenceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
13

gathering and sharing capabilities, and more effectively identifying 

and managing inmates who could perpetrate disruption. 

Additionally, we have taken steps to strengthen the selection 

process and training of our chaplains, who work closely with the 

inmate population. Beginning in 1996, we began requiring that our 

imams meet the same educational standards as all of our chaplains, meet the requirement for an endorsement by a national organization, thereby allowing us to verify the validity and credibility 

of the endorsing body. 

We have been managing inmates with ties to terrorism for over 

a decade by confining them in secure conditions and monitoring 

their communications closely. All of these inmates are clearly identified and tracked in our information systems. We have established 

a strategy that focuses on the appropriate levels of containment 

and isolation to ensure inmates with terrorist ties do not have the 

opportunity to radicalize or recruit other inmates. 

The Bureau has worked diligently particularly over the past 2 

years to enhance our intelligence-gathering and sharing capabilities in order to ensure a seamless flow of intelligence information 

between our agency, the FBI, the National Joint Terrorism Task 

Force, and other law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies. 

In addition to containing and isolating inmates who could attempt to radicalize other inmates, we employ a second very important strategy in lessening the opportunities for recruiting inmates 

to radical causes. We provide inmates with a wide variety of programs that have proven to give them the knowledge, skills and 

abilities they need to become more productive, law-abiding citizens 

when they are released from prison. 

Among the many programs offered to inmates in the Bureau of 

Prisons are the religious programs we provide to the approximately 

30 faiths represented within the population. All indications are 

that the overwhelming majority of inmates participate in religious 

programs in a positive, healthy and productive way. 

There are approximately 9,600 Muslim inmates, which is 5.5 percent of the inmate population. The percent of Federal inmates who 

identify themselves as Muslim has remained very stable for close 

to a decade. 

We employ full-time civil service chaplains to lead worship services and provide pastoral care and spiritual guidance to the inmates, to oversee the breadth of religious programs, and to monitor 

the accommodation provided by contractual spiritual leaders and 

community volunteers. 

Our religious contractors and volunteers assist and augment the 

services of civil service chaplains. We screen all staff, volunteers, 

and contractors to avoid hiring or contracting with anyone who is 

likely to pose a threat to institution security. 

BOP civil service chaplains meet all the requirements for employment as Federal law enforcement officers, including a field investigation, criminal background check, reference check, drug 

screening, pre-employment suitability interview, and a panel interview. The BOP expects chaplains to provide a full spectrum of programs and practices across multiple religions. Chaplains, like all 

BOP employees, are strictly prohibited from using their position to 

14

condone, support, or encourage violence or other inappropriate behavior. 

The BOP is committed to providing inmates with the opportunity 

to practice their faith, while at the same time ensuring that Federal prisoners are not radicalized or recruited for terrorist causes. 

The support that has been provided by the FBI, the agencies represented on the National Joint Terrorist Task Force, and other 

components of the Department of Justice and many other members 

of the law enforcement and intelligence communities, have been invaluable in our efforts in this area. 

Chairman Kyl, this concludes my formal statement and I look 

forward to answering any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lappin appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much. 

Let me begin by making a point and then asking Mr. Pistole to 

respond, if he desires to do so. It is beyond the purview of this 

hearing this morning to either examine any ongoing case under investigation or prosecution—I think we all understand that—or specific matters relating to counterterrorism which relate to primarily 

Mr. Pistole’s responsibilities, which is not to say that there hasn’t 

been significant coordination among the three of you with respect 

to counterterrorism aspects of the things that we are talking about. 

I guess I assume that those matters are being worked, but it is beyond the scope of our hearing today to talk about counterterrorism 

aspects of this, except in the most general sense. 

Mr. Pistole, do you have anything further to say about that? 

Mr. PISTOLE. Well, yes, Chairman Kyl. I appreciate your sensitivity to that issue, and you are correct in your assessment that 

there are a number of ongoing either investigations or proactive 

steps being taken, in concert with DOD and BOP, to assess and to 

determine the extent of the radicalization and the end use of whatever intelligence may be gathered by these individuals. 

Chairman KYL. Right. I wanted to make that clear. Now, let me 

ask a question of you, Mr. Pistole, and also to Mr. Abell. What you 

have said regarding the Department of Defense process for determining who would qualify as a chaplain, in addition to the qualities 

of an officer which you made clear—you said that the new guidance 

which you just signed a portion of this morning will ensure that 

the Department stays out of the business of approving religious organizations. Then you say one standard for a qualifying organization begins with the evaluation already defined by IRS. 

Now, my question is to both of you whether or not the granting 

of a tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) by the IRS would 

necessarily determine whether or not an organization is engaged in 

illegal activities or activities contrary to the defined public policy 

of the United States. 

Mr. PISTOLE. From an FBI perspective, that would have no bearing on whether we could either prove from a criminal investigative 

standpoint a person’s activity in supporting terrorism or any linkage thereof. And just to clarify, the FBI is not in the protocol of 

the screening of the individuals who would become the chaplains 

or the translators, unless a background check for an FBI record 

would be conducted. That would be the extent of it. 

15

Chairman KYL. Nor is the FBI involved with the IRS in determining the propriety of granting a 501(c)(3) designation to a particular group. Is that correct? 

Mr. PISTOLE. That is correct, Senator. 

Chairman KYL. So, Mr. Abell, my question to you is, other than 

verifying that the entity has a tax-exempt status under the IRS 

Code, is there anything in the granting of that that would necessarily screen an organization with respect to the issues that we 

are discussing today? 

Mr. ABELL. Not to my knowledge, sir. We have talked to the IRS 

about the processes that they use and they are more, it is my understanding, to determine that it is a valid organization that meets 

the tenets of the IRS Code. 

Chairman KYL. Right. Now, while you say that you are going to 

stay out of the business of approving religious organizations, the 

next sentence in your statement says ‘‘Our standard for a qualifying organization begins with the IRS determination.’’ So I am a 

little unclear. 

If you are out of the business of approving and then you have 

a standard for qualifying the organizations, could you square that 

circle for me? 

Mr. ABELL. I will try, Senator. 

Chairman KYL. And my second question in that regard is what 

is the purpose for qualifying an organization? 

Mr. ABELL. I understand. In the past, the Department of Defense 

had a process under which various religions, if you will, would 

apply for recognition by the Department of Defense. It was a process in which they had to come in and demonstrate in writing, and 

fill out an application and demonstrate in writing a number of criteria. 

At the end of that process, the Armed Forces Chaplains Board 

would make a recommendation to the person who sits in my position to approve that organization or that religion, if you will, as one 

that could provide chaplains to the armed forces. 

When I came into the office, we began to look at that and wondered what was the Department of Defense doing—what was our 

core competency to approve a religion. And as I look back over the 

history, as the Department searched for a way to sort out whether 

there was a religion, if you will, or a church behind an individual 

chaplain, that is what they were attempting to do. 

So we looked for an alternative. We started out about a year ago. 

We are very near the completion of that process, and we looked to 

the IRS as the agency that would tell us that it was a valid organization, that it had a structure and was formed to perform that 

function. 

After that, we look at it to say does it have a lay constituency. 

In the term of art, that means is there a church out there, is there 

a group of people who come to these people to meet and practice 

their religion. And then do they have candidates who might come 

forward to be considered to be a chaplain in the armed services? 

So that is sort of three steps at that point. The point I would like 

to make is that once you have made it through those three hurdles, 

what you have earned is an application to come to the military. 

16

Chairman KYL. If I could, will you be soliciting applications from 

groups or will you simply passively accept applications and then go 

through this process? What is the plan in that regard? 

Mr. ABELL. The groups approach us when they have candidates 

that they would like to press forward or present for consideration 

to be a chaplain. It is not beyond the realm that we might go 

seek—if we had a constitency within our armed forces and had no 

organizations that already come forward, we might go seek that. In 

fact, as a result of the last several months of activities, we are looking around to see if there are organizations that might provide us 

Muslim chaplains other than the two that currently provide it. 

Chairman KYL. So would it be fair to say that no longer will it 

be the Department of Defense policy that one or two specific organizations would have the sole authority to approve or to nominate 

members to the chaplaincy? 

Mr. ABELL. That is true. 

Chairman KYL. And would that be one of the biggest changes in 

the policy that you are moving toward adopting? 

Mr. ABELL. I think that certainly is a major part of it. From a 

purely theoretical view, I would have argued that those two folks, 

those two organizations never were granted in any way sole authority, but de facto they are the only two who have provided Muslim chaplains to date. 

Chairman KYL. Do you know whether or not there were attempts 

by other Muslim clerics or other groups to support Muslim clerics 

who attempted to be nominated for officer status in the U.S. military who were turned down because they weren’t sponsored by 

those two organizations? 

Mr. ABELL. No, sir, none, to my knowledge. 

Chairman KYL. Now, Mr. Lappin, I don’t want to let you off the 

hook. I have just got another minute or so and I wanted to begin 

to get into some of the things that you had to say. 

I am unclear based on your testimony what the policy of the Bureau of Prisons is going to be now. You talk about the qualifications, which include as number four endorsement by a recognizing 

endorsing organization. What I would like to have you address is 

kind of the same questions that I put to Mr. Abell. 

Who are those endorsing organizations in the case of the Islamic 

chaplains or clerics, and are there any changes that have been 

made in your policy in the last few weeks? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir. It has not been our practice to go out and 

ask organizations to recruit chaplains for us. 

Chairman KYL. It has or has not? 

Mr. LAPPIN. It has not been. 

Chairman KYL. It has not. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have an open and continuous advertisement for 

chaplains throughout the country and anyone can apply. They are 

then responsible for identifying an endorsing agency, but they all 

must first meet the minimum requirements for a Federal law enforcement officer, which I mentioned included screening, an interview, a panel interview, field investigation check, criminal history 

check, vouchering of employers over the last 5 years, drug screening, and certainly a citizen of the U.S. or a legal resident. 

17

Beyond that, they must have a B.A. or a B.S. from an accredited 

college, a master’s of divinity, or 90 semester hours towards those 

credits, and a minimum of 2 years of ministry experience, and then 

an endorsement. An endorsement is just a small portion of, I guess, 

the application process. 

When they bring forth an endorsing agency, we then go to the 

endorsing agency and ask them to provide to us support justification as to why there should be an endorsing agency, at which time 

we then investigate, and now coordinate closely with the FBI and 

the other National Joint Terrorism Task Force to ensure who we 

are discussing these issues with. 

Again, they are attesting to the fact this individual is suitable for 

ministry in this area. They assess or they provide us input on their 

experience with this individual and the individual’s experience and 

that they have no present or past legal or moral barriers to serving 

as a chaplain. So, collectively, all those things go into the process 

of selecting a chaplain. Our chaplains are not selected by the chaplaincy corps. They are then selected by an administrator who oversees the institution or the region, so they are not being selected by 

the chaplaincy corps. 

Chairman KYL. We are going to turn now to Senator Feinstein, 

but let me just ask you for a yes or no answer. In the past, have 

you used as an endorsing organization the American Muslim 

Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of 

North America and its Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences? 

Mr. LAPPIN. We have used ISNA and AMC or AMF. We have not 

used the others because no one has come forth with them as an endorsing agency. 

One individual did bring forth, I believe, the Veterans. They have 

failed to send us the information so that we could verify their status as an endorsing agency. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. I would 

like to follow up on your questions. We talked about three endorsing agencies. You have just mentioned them: the Islamic Society of 

North America, the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans 

Affairs Council, and the Graduate School for Islamic Social 

Sciences. 

Now, Mr. Abell, do I understand it that the Defense Department 

will no longer use those organizations as endorsing organizations 

for chaplains? 

Mr. ABELL. No, ma’am. That is not correct. They won’t have exclusive endorsing rights, if you will. Recognizing that they are 

under investigation, we are seeking others, and should these organizations be determined to have violated their principles or to 

somehow be indicted, then we would—the members of those—the 

chaplains who were endorsed by those folks would have to find another endorsing agency. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you know who funds those organizations? 

Do you know where the money comes from? 

Mr. ABELL. Only what I read in the papers, ma’am. 

18

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me ask the same question to Mr. Lappin. 

Are you going to continue to use those three organizations? And, 

secondly, do you know who funds them? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not familiar with who funds them. We have not 

hired any Muslim chaplains since August of 2001. We probably will 

not hire any, at least from these endorsing agencies, until the investigations are completed. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And if it was shown that they were funded 

by Saudi Arabia and that they promoted the religious beliefs of the 

extremist Wahhabi sect of Islam, would that change your view 

about these organizations? 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, ma’am. I think that that would cause us to cease 

to recognize those organizations, and then, as I said, the individual 

chaplains, as long as they had maintained their oath and their conduct and performance had been outstanding, they would have an 

opportunity to find another endorsing agency. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I might just say that some experts have 

said that they are funded by Saudi Arabia, and I would like to ask 

that you determine this and let this Subcommittee know if that, in 

fact, is correct. And I would like to know what the policy would be 

about having militant Wahhabists as chaplains in either the Bureau of Prisons or our Defense facilities. If you could answer that, 

that would be great. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, I would agree, if we received that type of information about an endorsing agency, we would certainly change our 

position on using them as an endorsing agency in the future. And 

as I said, we do not plan to hire any chaplains, Muslim chaplains 

at this time who are being referred by an endorsing agency that 

is under investigation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am asking you to do a little bit more than 

just be passive and receive. I am asking that you find out. 

Mr. LAPPIN. We will do that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And, Mr. Abell, will you do that as well? 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, ma’am. As you know, the Department is not investigating. We turn to our colleagues in the Department of Justice 

for that. But we are in communication with them over this. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Now, I would like to ask another question along a slightly different line. Two translators at Guantanamo—former taxi driver Ahmed Mahalba and Air Force senior 

airman Ahmed Al-Halibi—both have been arrested. And I believe 

customs inspectors found classified information in Mahalba’s luggage, and Al-Halibi allegedly tried to pass sensitive information to 

Syria. 

The Boston Herald has reported that both Mahalba and AlHalibi had been hired even though Mahalba had financial problems 

and Al-Halibi had already been investigated for making anti-American statements. 

In an article by the Cox News Service, Kevin Henzell, a spokesman for the American Translators Association, said that under normal circumstances neither man would have been hired, but because 

there is such a demand for Arabic language speakers, the Government may have overlooked certain red flags. 

Thomas West, the head of the American Translators Association, 

was quoted as saying, ‘‘They were desperate and sort of grabbing 

19

at straws. It just ignores the whole idea there are professional 

translators out there when you start grabbing taxi drivers.’’ 

Would you comment, please, Mr. Abell? 

Mr. ABELL. Shortly after September 11, 2001, it became obvious 

to the Department of Defense, and I am sure the whole of the Federal Government, that we did not have sufficient numbers of Arabic 

linguists or translators or interrogators to prosecute the global war 

on terror to the extent that we were going to need them. Then 

what immediately followed was an intensive recruiting effort. In 

that recruiting effort, we looked to folks who had the ability to 

speak and would then—either to translate or to interrogate, depending on their skill set. 

I think it is fair to say that folks were brought on with sort of 

interim-level checks and then the more detailed checks to follow, 

and I think the results of that are as we are seeing here. We have 

found a couple who were not as trustworthy as we had hoped initially. But there was an initial push. I think we all recognized that 

we did not have enough Arabic linguists already employed to meet 

our requirements. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now, I understand that some of the civilian 

translators at Guantanamo, including Mr. Mahalba, are from military contractors, such as the San Diego-based Titan Corporation. 

What background checks and vetting do DOD contractors do on 

contract translators? 

Mr. ABELL. We do use contractors as a means to hire linguists 

and interrogators. The Titan Corporation is among those. They run 

a background check, and then, of course, the military does a more 

detailed check. And as I said, in our rush to meet the requirements, the mere numerical requirements, I think folks were 

brought on based on those initial checks, and then the more detailed checks followed as time permitted. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Are you doing anything to change your procedure in this regard? 

Mr. ABELL. Oh, yes, ma’am. We have a number of programs that 

we are implementing to bolster our ability to have linguists in a 

number of languages, not just Arabic, to include a new reserve program where the members would be a part of the various reserve 

components. We hope never to be caught in this position again, but 

we were. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do translators at Guantanamo have free 

movement throughout the prison facility? I have been there so I 

have seen how it is set up, but can they move about and talk with 

prisoners at will? 

Mr. ABELL. I have not been to Guantanamo since the global war 

on terror prisoners were brought there. It is my understanding that 

they do not, but that is an understanding, secondhand knowledge. 

I have not been there. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Because there is some testimony from a man 

by the name of Bill Tierney who worked as a translator at Guantanamo in February and March of 2002, and I believe he stated recently that interpreters who worked with guards could roam the facility unescorted, were able to speak one-on-one with detainees. So 

it would seem to me that that is worthwhile checking out. And 

20

could you please make available to the Committee the memo you 

referred to earlier? 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would appreciate that. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I was 

raised to respect other people’s religion, and I think that is important. I try to take my faith seriously, and I respect others who take 

their faiths seriously. But we need to think clearly here about some 

tendencies that are in certain parts of the Islamic groups that are 

radicalized that do not respect our freedom, they do not respect the 

liberty that we have, and they see other faiths as a threat, something that needs to be eliminated. A small group, but it is real, and 

we might as well understand that. 

Mr. Abell, I would like to just pursue a little bit this endorser 

concept. As I understand it from my friend, who is a Methodist 

chaplain, he remains a member of the Methodist Annual Conference. He has to be in good standing of that conference. If they 

require educational programs, he has to maintain those. And if for 

some reason he loses that imprimatur of the conference of the 

Methodist Church, then he may not be able to continue as a chaplain. Is that correct? 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. So an endorsing organization has a continuing 

involvement with the person that they endorse. It is not just, okay, 

we recommend the chaplain to the military or to the prison system. 

This person has to remain loyal to that group to some degree. And 

if the group is not a healthy organization, doesn’t that add an additional threat to the military or to the prison system? 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, sir. It certainly is a concern. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Lappin? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, it is, sir. In fact, if that were the case, our chaplains can change endorsing agencies. We would probably ask them 

to do so. 

Senator SESSIONS. But the difficulty is that if your endorsing 

agency is not legitimate, then we have got a problem. Senator Kyl 

raised a question, and I think it is quite valid. Are you saying, Mr. 

Abell, that if the IRS says that an entity, a religious entity, is legitimate, therefore they are legitimate for the purposes of the Department of Defense? 

Mr. ABELL. No, sir. That is one screen that we use. We rely on 

the IRS to have determined that this is an organization that has 

structure and meets their requirements. So that prevents you or 

me from creating the Church of the Texaco Star at the burned-out 

gas station or something and sending forth a chaplain. I hope there 

is no Church of the Texaco Star. 

Senator SESSIONS. I recall one fellow tried to have the Church of 

the New Song. He was a prisoner and wanted to have steak and 

wine as communion services twice a week and filed a lawsuit to 

that effect. So you are right. You can have bogus groups. 

Mr. Pistole, as a former Federal prosecutor who worked with the 

FBI, I am aware that there are Department of Justice regulaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
21

tions—I have not had a chance to look at them—that provide special cautions against investigating church groups. Is that still in 

the Department of Justice guidelines? 

Mr. PISTOLE. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. And how does that—and I remember in this 

Senate we had a fuss, which shocked me, that an agent could not 

go into an open worship service and see if they were planning attacks on America. I think we got past that. But what are the restraints that constrain an agent when they do investigations if the 

entity is a church as opposed to some other secular corporation? 

Mr. PISTOLE. Well, Senator, as you are aware, the PATRIOT Act 

did change a lot of that for the FBI and other investigative agencies in terms of domestic investigations whereby if we have predication on an individual who goes into a mosque or a church or 

some type of religious facility that that person is somehow related 

to terrorist activity, then clearly we can have an undercover agent 

go in, a cooperative witness, somebody go in who is wired up and 

can record those conversations, can take down that information, 

and do everything that we can to prevent that person, whether it 

is an imam, a cleric, whoever it may be, from inciting others to violence. 

Now, obviously there is a fine line between extremism, which is 

protected under the First Amendment, obviously, and the ability to 

incite jihad in the commonly accepted term as opposed to, you 

know, spiritual development, as it has historically been. So we can 

do that, and there is no limitation from our perspective. In fact, 

we— 

Senator SESSIONS. It is still more difficult, is it not, for you to—

or is there still a hangover sense that causes you, maybe rightly, 

to be less aggressive in investigating an entity that has religious 

connections and claims itself to be a church as opposed to a group 

of drug dealers or Mafia types? 

Mr. PISTOLE. In all probability, I would like to think not, given 

everything that has happened since 9/11, but, sure, if there is a situation where there is some concern about the religious aspects, an 

individual agent may have some reservations. But as head of the 

Counterterrorism Division, I can tell you that the policy is that 

there is no restriction there, as long as we have the predication on 

the individual. Obviously, we are not investigating the institution, 

the religion, anything like that. 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to the FBI and your investigations and Mr. Abell’s problem of endorsing organizations, I understand Mr. Abell to suggest that if there were an indictment or a 

conviction, he would not use somebody as an endorsing organization. But as a background and as a security action, we are not required to take that risk, are we? When you do a background check 

on a person for a sensitive position, you do not have to have 

enough evidence to indict them before you say we are just not too 

sure we ought to hire this person? Are we miscommunicating here 

somewhere, Mr. Abell? Do you see the point I am trying to make? 

Mr. ABELL. I do, and perhaps I did not use the term in the same 

sense that you would, sir, as a former prosecutor. If the FBI advises or the Department of Justice advises the Department of Defense that this is not an organization that we ought to accept, then 

22

we would not, whether that is added to the list of terrorist organizations or some other sort of lesser classification. 

Senator SESSIONS. Okay. Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. We are not sticking exactly to the 5-minute rule, 

but give or take a few minutes, and so I appreciate that very much. 

Senator Schumer? 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I did want to take the indulgence of the Committee to announce that I have two guests here today. They are my parents. 

They are in the audience. I cannot see them, but I have been told 

they are here. They are here with their bridge club from New York. 

Hi, Mom, hi, Dad, wherever you are. 

Chairman KYL. Could we recognize you to stand, please? It is not 

often that the parents of a Senator—well, thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman KYL. This will not count toward your time, Senator 

Schumer, but we could not even get two seats together. It is just 

like on the airplane. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to say that I am heartened by what we have heard 

here today because, as you know, this has been a concern of mine 

in both the Bureau of Prisons and the military for a while. But I 

would like to get some details. There are two aspects here: one is 

outreach, and one is dealing with groups that should not be inside. 

In terms of outreach, I think you said, Mr. Abell, that the armed 

forces were going to make an effort to reach out to other Muslim 

groups. We have hundreds and hundreds of Christian chaplains of 

different denominations, and that is great. And somehow it seems 

that at least the people—we do not exactly know—I do not think 

anyone has interviewed the ten Muslim chaplains that are in the—

are there ten in the Bureau of Prisons? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Ten in the Bureau of Prisons. 

Senator SCHUMER. Or I don’t know how many there are in the— 

Mr. ABELL. Twelve, Senator. 

Senator SCHUMER. Twelve in the armed forces, if they have any 

kind of diversity, but the groups that are filtering them through 

may not. Can you just outline what your outreach is going to be? 

And are you going to look particularly for Sufi and Shia and Sunni 

Muslim groups? Some of whom after I got involved in this contacted my office on their own and said they would be interested in 

this kind of thing. 

Mr. ABELL. Senator, from the Department of Defense perspective, 

we are going to—we are, in fact, have already begun looking for organizations that would meet the criteria who could be sponsoring 

or endorsing organizations, without regard to the particular sect. 

We had not targeted in any way one sect or another or even— 

Senator SCHUMER. And it seems—and this may be true of prisons 

as well. It seems you just sort of—these two groups—how did it 

come to be that these two groups became the only two groups that 

were involved? Is it that they were the only ones that came forward 

and the knowledge of Islam in America was such that nobody said, 

well, just as we know for sure there are Baptists, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, and those are different forms of Christianity, that we sort of did not know that there were different forms 

23

of Islam and that only—what happened here? These two groups, 

did you approach them, BOP and military, or did they approach 

you and you said, well, if you are 501(c)(3) you are fine and you 

will go through those other checks? Mr. Abell first, and then Mr. 

Lappin. 

Mr. ABELL. In the case of the Department of Defense, these are 

the only two groups who have come to us and asked to be recognized. 

Senator SCHUMER. They came forward? 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. And it would sort of make sense that those 

who had the most passion about this or who might have another 

agenda would come forward, where others might not. 

Mr. ABELL. Again, one of the things that is required of being a 

chaplain in the military is that the individual has to personally certify that they are pluralistic— 

Senator SCHUMER. I understand. 

Mr. ABELL. —that they support the— 

Senator SCHUMER. Free exercise of religion, in other words, 

which is good, although, again, we have had instances where that 

has not happened. At least we know of those in some instances. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir, we do not, again, go out and search out organizations or agencies to bring us candidates. Candidates come to 

us. They then bring with them an endorsing agency. My assumption is—we have had some of our chaplains for as many as 16 

years, and in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, there were not that many 

Islamic organizations of a national level that could provide endorsement. So that is in part why we probably have more from ISNA 

than others. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, it sort of happened sort of by both accident and not total familiarity with the Islam religion. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, and we got to know them relatively well. We 

have gone out and done training with ISNA. They participated in 

our training. So we educated ourselves somewhat on a number of 

the endorsing agencies by our relationship with them beyond just 

the endorsing. 

Senator SCHUMER. Now, let me ask a second question. I take it 

it has become clear—and I know Senator Kyl alluded to this—that 

your criteria for including somebody are really not sufficient any 

longer, that just to have a 501(c)(3) and go through a routine background check is not enough, and you are going to—this is in terms 

of excluding groups that shouldn’t be, not including groups that 

should be. Is that fair? I see both witnesses nodding their heads, 

but could they verbalize it so the recorder could get that down? 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, Senator. We are going to continue our study of 

this until we can find a way that would hopefully avoid situations— 

Senator SCHUMER. And it is a difficult area because you want to 

have freedom of religion. I think Mr. Pistole even talked about the 

different meanings of the word ‘‘jihad.’’ There can be a religious 

type of jihad, which is all a thought process, which is protected by 

the First Amendment, and then we know there can be an action 

form of jihad, which is criminal and immoral and inhumane and 

everything else. 

24

The same with you, Mr. Lappin? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, sir, I would agree. We are going to do everything—we are going to remain vigilant and exploring as much as 

we can about endorsing agencies. We will be working— 

Senator SCHUMER. But both of you admit that the existing criteria were not good enough, in retrospect. 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes. 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. Next question. This really does concern 

me, the fact that a military chaplain led this delegation of soldiers 

on a trip to Saudi Arabia in 2001 that was sponsored by the Muslim World League, which, again, the CIA—that is an official Saudi 

organization, but the CIA has said it is a front for Al-Qaeda. What 

do you know about this, Mr. Abell? What is going on that you can 

tell us, given the constraints that the Chairman, of course, correctly mentioned that we do not want to interfere with an ongoing 

investigation? But this knocked my socks off. I was surprised it did 

not get more attention than it did. Could you tell us what you can 

about that? 

Mr. ABELL. What I do know— 

Senator SCHUMER. It also says to me something is going on here. 

How did this chaplain get connected with the Muslim World 

League? Maybe it is innocent, maybe it is not, but it certainly 

ought to be looked into. 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, sir. I do not know how this chaplain was connected with this organization. As for the service members who 

went, they asked for and were granted their ordinary leave. They 

were on leave status and thus able to travel as U.S. citizens without any further scrutiny by their commands or the military service. 

So I think what we knew about that at the time was almost nothing as an institution, as the Department of Defense or as the military service. The interesting— 

Senator SCHUMER. What does it make you think now? 

Mr. ABELL. Well, as I was about to say, the interesting question 

becomes the connection of the chaplain to the organization. I do not 

believe we would get to the point where we would ask our soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, and marines to tell us what they wanted to do on 

their leave. So we may have instances where a service member 

goes on leave and— 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, are you going to question the chaplain 

and ask him how he got connected with this organization? Are you 

going to find out— 

Mr. ABELL. I think that is the interesting question, yes, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. Are you going to find out if these people just 

on their own, the members of the armed forces said, gee, I would 

like to go on a haj or it was suggested by this chaplain? Were there 

other chaplains suggesting it as well? Don’t you think these are all 

relevant questions that we ought to know the answers to? 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, sir. I wanted to try and separate the activities 

of the 50, 60 individuals with that of the— 

Senator SCHUMER. Who have a perfect right to go, obviously. 

Okay. I understand that. 

25

Finally, as you know, I have written both of your agencies for a 

while. Mr. Lappin, you are new on the job so you get exoneration 

here. I don’t know long you have been there, Mr. Abell. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Long enough. 

Senator SCHUMER. Long enough, says Senator Feinstein. But 

why has it been that—you know, I do not expect the answers the 

next day, but I have really encountered very little cooperation in 

answers from both the military and the Bureau of Prisons in the 

letters I have written, in the concerns I have brought up here. And 

when I brought these up, maybe it was not as prominent as now, 

but we have had new instances of things coming up that are very, 

very troubling. What is going on? And can I find a liaison who my 

staff can call and get questions answered that either aren’t classified or aren’t concerning an ongoing investigation? 

Mr. ABELL. Obviously, the answer to the latter question is yes. 

Let me— 

Senator SCHUMER. Who might that be? 

Mr. ABELL. I am sure the Department would suggest that Secretary Moore would be your point of entry. 

Senator SCHUMER. I do not need someone that high up. I just 

need someone who knows the answers. 

Mr. ABELL. But I am sure that our Inspector General, Mr. 

Schmitz, would come see you as well and be happy to talk to you. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. Well, if you could just get me the name 

of a liaison, and day to day when we find out these things, we always want to check them out and be careful with them. 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. How about you, Mr. Lappin? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I apologize it has taken so long, sir. I will check into 

it. I understand the letter was sent to the IG. We will follow up 

with them today or tomorrow and try and get you a response as 

quickly as possible. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Schumer. 

Senator Durbin, before I call on you, could I ask your indulgence 

for just two quick things? 

First of all, I think it is a good idea to have Secretary Schmitz 

come to us. What I would like to arrange is for a private briefing 

of the Committee because there could be both classified and ongoing investigation matters, given his position, but I think that would 

be a very useful thing for our Committee. 

Senator SCHUMER. A great idea, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KYL. And with your suggestion, Mr. Abell, we will contact Mr. Schmitz for that purpose. 

Secondly—and, again, Senator Durbin, might I ask your indulgence? Senator Schumer asked a question of you, Mr. Abell, about 

whether you were aware of any other organizations that sought to 

be recognized by the Department of Defense for the purpose of 

denominating military chaplains. I just quote from a news magazine article and ask this question. This is from the October 27th 

issue of National Review in an article by Kate O’Byrne, and I will 

read the paragraph on page 32: 

26

‘‘A moderate Muslim organization aligned with Shiite Islam also 

claims to have been ignored by the Defense Department. The Universal Muslim Association of America has tried unsuccessfully to 

be approved to certify Muslim clerics. Its spokesman explains, ‘The 

Defense Department should be aware that there are two main 

forms of Islam, Sunni and Shiite, and that it was only Wahhabism 

that is being represented.’’’ 

Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. ABELL. Senator, I read Ms. O’Byrne’s article this morning 

about 8 o’clock, and so I have had no opportunity to look into those 

statements. I do not necessarily agree with everything that I read 

in that article, but certainly we will check out whether or not we 

have ignored one or more— 

Chairman KYL. That is an allegation that would be inconsistent 

with what you said. 

Mr. ABELL. Yes, sir. 

Chairman KYL. So you will get back to us with your response. 

Mr. ABELL. Absolutely. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Durbin. You have the floor. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Not being a member 

of this Committee, I am attending more of your sessions more often 

because, frankly, you have very important issues and very relevant 

to our discussion about the war on terrorism. And I wanted to also 

greet Mr. and Mrs. Schumer and tell you that your son, whom I 

have lived with for 11 years, is a great roommate. So you raised 

him well. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCHUMER. Don’t tell them about my neatness habits. 

Senator DURBIN. No, I will not talk about that. 

It strikes me that when we talk about this issue in its obvious 

extreme, it is easy. When there are people who are seeking to be 

chaplains or religious counselors who have a criminal record or 

espouse violence, who collect information and use it against our 

Government, these are the clear cases. 

What worries me, though, is when we start setting standards for 

acceptable chaplains and acceptable religions, I think we get into 

a very difficult area. If I read correctly your Code of Ethics, the 

American Correctional Chaplains Association—I do not know if you 

have all assumed that that guides your decisions or is part of your 

decisions. Have you had instances in the past where certain religious groups have been excluded even though there is no clear evidence that the person asking to be a chaplain has anything in his 

or her background that would disqualify them? Mr. Lappin? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Not to my knowledge, but we can certainly check on 

that. Again, we have 231 chaplains, and we scrutinize all of those 

applications very closely. But, again, not to my knowledge that we 

have excluded anyone. 

Senator DURBIN. If I understand the standards, it is basically a 

certain level of education and certification by their religion, and 

then you look to their personal resumes to see if there is anything. 

But I worry about what is surfacing now. Senator Sessions made 

reference to what some people are calling religion. In my home 

State, there is something called the World Church of the Creator, 

which is under investigation and indictment, and they claim to be 

27

a religion. But they espouse violence; they are anti-Semitic; they 

are racist. And I was just curious as to what the process would be 

if someone said, ‘‘I am a minister of this church and would like to 

be a chaplain in a Federal prison,’’ and some prisoners said, ‘‘Yes, 

we would like to have such a person as chaplain,’’ How does that 

work? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Well, typically, this begins from the inmates. Typically, inmates will come in and say, ‘‘I am a member of this church 

or practice this religion,’’ and we do a thorough investigation before 

we determine that that, in fact, is a religion that we would recognize in the prison setting. So, typically, it comes from the other direction, but we have a process by which we make that assessment 

and determine that. 

Senator DURBIN. What is the standard for whether you would 

recognize—you said that you would recognize in a prison setting. 

What I am trying to get to is the hard part of this question. Can 

you, will you draw a line and say this is either not a religion or 

is a religion that we find unacceptable to minister to inmates? 

Mr. LAPPIN. Yes, we would. I believe we would, and we can provide to you how we determine what is a religion as it pertains to 

requests from inmates that might lend you an idea of how we make 

that assessment. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Abell, could you address that as well in 

terms of how you would deal with this concept of defining religions 

and ruling certain religions unacceptable? 

Mr. ABELL. Senator, this is the precise reason that a year ago we 

began to look at how we deal with endorsing agencies, and as I explained—maybe before you arrived—there was a point at which the 

Department approved religions, if you will, and that was a thing 

I was trying to get away from, couldn’t find a core competency in 

the Department of Defense to approve a religion. 

We have had a number of religions that have come forward to 

us that wanted to provide chaplains whose practices were not, in 

my personal view, anyway, consistent with good order and discipline within the military services. Those religions have not yet 

made it through the process, either the IRS process or the old Department of Defense process where they would be recognized. Were 

they, there is a second test, which is: Do the services need them, 

much like his population, only this would—in the Department of 

Defense this is usually a determination at the service level. It may 

have bubbled up from the deck plates, if you will, but the service 

would determine whether it needed a chaplain from that particular 

religion or not based on what it knew about the members within 

its service. But it is very difficult, but we do hold the standard of 

good order and discipline as well. 

Senator DURBIN. Have you been challenged in any of these decisions by these religions in court as to whether or not you could exclude them? 

Mr. ABELL. In the history of the Department, I do not know. 

Lately, not yet. We certainly would anticipate that will come. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Lappin, do you recall any challenges? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I know we have been challenged by inmates when 

we determine that their religion is not one that we would recognize. 

28

Senator DURBIN. And has there been a court determination on 

any of these decisions? 

Mr. LAPPIN. I am not sure, but we can certainly check into that 

and provide you what we know. 

Senator DURBIN. If you would. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that some of these are fairly obvious. If 

you are dealing with a minister, someone who has a questionable 

background, or a religion which clearly espouses violence and terrorism, I think these are all fairly easy calls. But there is a very 

difficult gray area here in terms of what is an acceptable religion 

in a country that tries to embrace diversity. And I applaud you for 

your efforts to try to draw that line. I think it is increasingly difficult. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin. 

If there are no other questions from the dais here, I would like 

to thank our panelists. Obviously, this is an ongoing matter, both 

for us and for you. We will be interested in getting further reports 

about the evolution, particularly, Mr. Abell, of the Department of 

Defense’s program here and would hope that you would provide 

that to us in writing from time to time or as it is appropriate. We 

will follow through on the other matters that I indicated. We will 

keep the record open until the end of this week for any other additional comments you would have or any questions that members of 

the panel might have. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I would just follow up with a 

written question, but I am curious about what if a chaplain celebrates those who attacked on 9/11 as martyrs or a chaplain that 

not only is himself a pacifist but actually preaches to soldiers they 

should also be pacifist. I would like to hear your position in the Department of Defense. You do not need to take that time now, but 

how you deal with that, because I think some of the messages can 

also be against the good order and discipline of the service. We just 

do not need to be too timid about this. I do not think we need to 

be timid about who we pay in our prisons and our military. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and you can get 

that information to us in writing, obviously. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Chairman KYL. Now I would like to invite our second group of 

panelists forward for what I know is going to be some very interesting testimony. There are two panelists but a third member will 

be joining us at the table. 

The first panelist is Dr. Michael Waller. Dr. Michael Waller is 

testifying in his capacity as the Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school of statecraft and national security in Washington, 

where he teaches courses on propaganda and political warfare. As 

a journalist and author, Dr. Waller has written about terrorism 

and political warfare for 20 years and conducted a pioneering study 

published in 1991 of the U.S.-based political and fundraising networks of international guerrilla and terrorist groups. He has been 

working with the Center for Security Policy on tracking Islamist 

terrorist groups and their domestic political networks in the United 

States, and his testimony today will place the issue of the Islamist 

29

prison and military chaplain recruitment into a larger context. He 

is testifying as an expert witness on the political warfare operations of terrorist organizations and not on Islam, I would make it 

very clear. 

Chaplain Paul E. Rogers is president of the American Correctional Chaplains Association, which represents over 450 Federal 

and State prison chaplains around the country. Mr. Rogers is a 

former chaplain in the U.S. Air Force and has been Archdiocese of 

Milwaukee representative to the Christian-Islamic Dialogue for 10 

years. He has been employed by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections since 1989. And Chaplain Rogers is accompanied by Chaplain A.J. Sabree—I hope I am pronouncing that correctly, sir—the 

treasurer of the American Correctional Chaplains Association and 

the former Chair of the American Correctional Chaplains Association Certification Committee. Mr. Sabree, a Muslim imam, is assistant director of chaplaincy services at the Georgia Department 

of Corrections and supervises chaplains at 104 facilities throughout 

Georgia. He has been with the department since 1975, is based in 

Atlanta, has 28 years of experience as a clinical chaplain, including 

15 years in his current position, and is based in Atlanta. 

Thank you, all three of you, for being here. Dr. Waller, the floor 

is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WALLER, ANNENBERG PROFESSOR 

OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION, INSTITUTE OF 

WORLD POLITICS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WALLER. Thank you, Chairman Kyl and members of the Subcommittee, for having this hearing and for inviting me to testify on 

sort of connecting the dots about how the chaplains issue connects 

with the larger foreign-funded efforts to penetrate our society on 

behalf of people who wish us ill. 

I have a very lengthy prepared statement, which I will leave for 

the record, but what I would like to do is to scan over it in the time 

I am allowed. My written testimony discusses the foreign entities 

and individuals who created the Muslim Chaplain Corps for the 

United States military, the parties responsible for nominating and 

vetting them, the issue of state-sponsored penetration of the U.S. 

military and prisons, challenges to our ability to understand the 

nature of the problem, and the larger context of which the chaplain 

program is part. 

In short, this is what my colleagues and I have found over the 

past two and a half years: first, foreign states and movements have 

been financing the promotion of radical, political Islam, which we 

call Islamism, within America’s armed forces and prisons. It is fundamentally a political movement with a lot of religious overtones. 

It seeks political power and it demands a radical change in our 

legal system and, in fact, in our Constitution. That alien ideology 

preaches intolerance and hatred of our society and our culture and 

the principles enshrined in our Constitution, and adherents to the 

ideology directly and indirectly spawn, train, finance, supply, and 

mobilize terrorists who would destroy our system of Government 

and our way of life. 

They have created civil support networks for terrorists at home 

and abroad, many of which operate entirely legally, providing maVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
30

terial assistance, fundraising operations, logistics, propaganda, 

legal services in the event of arrest or imprisonment, and bringing 

political pressure to bear on policymakers and opinion leaders 

grappling with counterterrorism issues. 

As a society, we have not understood the problem. I think part 

of the reason is that some of our leaders, particularly in the FBI 

and elsewhere, have not wanted to forthrightly confront the issue. 

It was noted that someone did a content analysis of the FBI Director’s speeches and could not find where they had ‘‘Islam’’ and ‘‘terrorism’’ in the same sentence. The FBI has repeatedly come to 

hearings of this Subcommittee and not given straight answers, not 

even discussed, as in the June 26th hearing, the issue of the hearing. So we have done a disservice in terms of public understanding. 

This also comes on attempts by supporters of some of these terrorist groups to stifle debate. Our research also shows that the 

most virulent of the denunciations of the anti-terrorism processes 

and the critics of these movements and these hearings have come 

from groups that themselves are tied to or funded by foreign 

Wahhabi entities, including the Muslim Brotherhood, by the way. 

As we will see, a reported Muslim Brotherhood member was arrested a couple of weeks ago, Abdurahman Alamoudi. He built the 

political pressure groups in Washington, the main ones, on a lot of 

Muslim issues, the radical Muslim issues, and he also created the 

Muslim Chaplain Corps in the U.S. military. 

We have to keep this in the larger context. This is part of 40 

years, spans 40 years of Wahhabi political warfare as an element 

of international religious proselytizing and, some would argue, political warfare of which religious proselytizing is an element. And 

the strategic goal is twofold: to dominate the voice of Islam around 

the world, and to exert control over civil and political institutions 

around the world through a combination of infiltration, aggressive 

political warfare, charitable programs, and violence. And we see 

this happening globally—Pakistan, Egypt, United Kingdom, continental Europe, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Kosovo, Russia, Turkey, 

Southeast Asia, parts of Africa and Latin America, and here, too. 

To connect the dots, unlike our past adversaries, this terrorist 

enemy is often organized horizontally. We are used to dealing with 

vertical hierarchies so you can round them up just by following the 

hierarchy up to a central command and control. With some of the 

entities we are talking about, there is indeed a central command 

and control. But with others, it is networks so that even if you remove the leaders of those networks, the networks still flourish. 

They operate autonomously. They operate among themselves. Some 

have different ideologies, but they do cooperate with one another. 

They make common cause with one another, and this challenges 

previous intelligence assumptions that certain groups of Muslims, 

for example, would not collaborate with other types of Muslims, or 

even non-observant Muslims. 

The vertical structures include the so-called Wahhabi lobby here. 

This is a loose term to describe mainly Saudi and other foreignfunded groups, funded by Saudi Arabia, funded by Qatar, and other 

Wahhabi sources to promote these movements in the United 

States. 

31

Now, what I am talking about is all from open sources, and it 

is sort of extraordinary that the FBI cannot offer straight testimony on this. But what we have found are two components for this 

campaign. The first is operational, and it includes fundraising, logistics, material support, infiltration, training, indoctrination, intelligence collection, counterintelligence, security, and legal support 

for terrorist-oriented organizations. The second is political: grassroots organizing, ideological and political mobilization, and a Washington political presence to show national voices, to change the U.S. 

laws, to provide a mainstream face for their extreme agenda, and 

to attack their critics. 

In the words of an Al-Qaeda operative, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in the June 23rd Newsweek, Al-Qaeda has chosen to use 

‘‘mosques, prisons, and universities throughout the United States’’ 

to foil heightened security measures across the American heartland 

and to recruit people who don’t fit the terror profile so that they 

can more actively promote the agenda of Al-Qaeda or the interests 

of other organizations, the organizations of those groups. 

I see by the light I have run out of time, so I will reserve my 

other comments for later. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waller appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Well, thank you. I want to thank you for your 

written testimony, which is extraordinarily complete, and we appreciate that very much and we will have some questions after a 

moment. 

I hesitate to say ‘‘Mr. Rogers.’’ ‘‘Chaplain’’ would be a better way 

to refer to you, and I do that, sir. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL E. ROGERS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

CORRECTIONAL CHAPLAINS ASSOCIATION, WAUPUN, WISCONSIN; ACCOMPANIED BY A.J. SABREE, TREASURER, AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL CHAPLAINS ASSOCIATION, ATLANTA, 

GEORGIA 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kyl, Subcommittee members, thank you for this opportunity to be here. I am Paul Rogers, 

president of the American Correctional Chaplains Association and 

staff chaplain at Dodge Correctional Institution in Wisconsin. I 

have with me here today Imam A.J. Sabree, treasurer of the 

ACCA, the keeper of the checkbook. We trust him. And, of course, 

he is also the past Chair of the ACCA Certification Committee and 

assistant manager of chaplaincy services for the Georgia Department of Corrections. 

I would also like to direct your attention to the letter for the 

record of this Committee that has been separately submitted by 

Chaplain Gary Friedman, Chairman of the Jewish Prisoner Services International and our ACCA Communications Committee 

Chair. 

The American Correctional Chaplains Association represents correctional chaplains across the country from all different faith 

groups. In 1886, we were the first professional affiliate of the 

American Correctional Association. We share in the mission of protecting society by safely securing and hopefully rehabilitating inmates. 

32

Let me begin by stating that the vast majority of chaplains, including Islamic chaplains, support the goal of providing homeland 

and national security. 

With over 2 million men and women incarcerated across the 

country, terrorist recruitment in prisons and jails is indeed a potentially serious concern for our country. The religious climate in 

prisons today reflects that of our society with some very important 

distinctions. The religious diversity found across the United States 

is indeed seen in these prisons. We have well-known, mainstream 

religious represented in our prison populations, but we also encounter the lesser-known minority faith groups. We come in close 

contact with representatives of all these faith groups and religions. 

A distinction to be made is that since prison society is lived in 

a closed community, we see firsthand how these faiths respond to 

members who are in prison. We know our local faith communities 

and their leaders and consult them to meet religious requirements 

of their members. Equity demands that we treat all religions fairly. 

It may be because of prisons being isolated and closed communities 

that minority faith groups may appear more prominent in the general prison population than they do in the rest of society. Another 

reason is that racial minorities are found in prison at a greater 

percentage so that those racial minorities with a particular faith 

have greater numbers in prison. 

Religious programs in prisons are very active. Professional staff 

chaplains administer programs to respond to the religious needs of 

all inmates. Of civilians who choose to participate in various prison 

activities, the vast majority are religion program volunteers. While 

this may be true in most jurisdictions, there are areas of the country where those religious needs, or even rights, may be ignored or 

unmet due to lack of resources, distance from religious service providers, and poor administration. It is when inmates feel that they 

are not being treated fairly that disturbances may occur. Not all inmates may seek administrative or judicial relief to address perceived wrongs. This is one of the reasons why having a professional 

correctional chaplain is essential to good correctional management. 

Regarding reports of prisons being infiltrated by terrorists or terrorist organizations via prison religious programs, I think these 

have been blown out of proportion. Yes, some relatively minor situations have been identified, but they were stopped before escalating 

to dangerous levels. Nonetheless, what should concern us are conditions that allow these kinds of things to happen. 

Unqualified chaplains and/or inadequate supervision of programs 

and volunteers allow opportunities for abuse of religious programs. 

When these conditions are present, you have the potential for problems. The most effective way to counter such conditions is to employ certified correctional chaplains to administer religious programs. Why is this not being universally done? 

There are 50 States, the Federal prison system, and thousands 

of regional, county, and local jurisdictions, all with differing ideas 

on what chaplaincy is and a variety of job requirements for chaplains. The American Correctional Association has clear standards 

for what is required of a chaplain. 

What is a correctional chaplain? Much like our colleagues in the 

military and at hospitals, correctional chaplains provide pastoral 

33

care to those who are disconnected from the general community by 

certain circumstances—in this case to those who are imprisoned, as 

well as to the correctional facility staff and their families when requested. Each correctional chaplain is also a representative of his 

or her faith community and is required to be endorsed by their denominational body in order to qualify as a chaplain. Correctional 

chaplains are professionals, with specialized training in the unique 

dynamics of the corrections world. 

Professional chaplains also agree to abide by the ACCA Code of 

Ethics. Several departments of corrections across the country already subscribe to this Code of Ethics. For example, the New York 

City Department of Corrections recently adopted it for their own 

chaplains. 

Let me say this concerning some recent issues here with chaplains. If you had a member following this code under Competency, 

Article 7, members exercise their ministry without influencing prisoners or staff to change their religious preference or faith. Members conduct their ministry without communicating derogative attitudes towards other faiths. 

Another difficulty in having qualified correctional chaplains is 

that many States are experiencing serious budget deficits and have 

been eliminating or cutting back on their chaplains or replacing 

them with volunteers. If this were such a great idea, we wonder 

why this approach is not used in the legal departments. Having 

volunteer lawyers from the community would save many departments of corrections much money. 

By having unqualified volunteers operate in prisons without 

proper supervision can possibly lead to terrorist infiltration. A good 

correctional chaplain is familiar with the faith groups and volunteers within the community, even minority faith groups. It is this 

personal knowledge of community religious resources which is of 

benefit not only to inmates but the institution as well. Additionally, 

properly trained chaplains can distinguish between things that 

may be done in houses of worship in the community, but are not 

appropriate in a correctional setting. If a correctional chaplain observes or witnesses anything in a worship service or a religious 

study that in any way appears to be a threat to the institution, he 

or she is obligated to report it. Unfortunately, however, this is not 

the case in facilities that utilize unqualified chaplains or volunteers 

to oversee their programs. 

Finally, to fight terrorism, we must all be vigilant against our 

enemies wherever they might be. We professional chaplains can assist this cause by being an effective partner with all jurisdictions. 

The American Correctional Chaplains Association has already 

proven its ability to support the correctional needs with its longstanding affiliation with the American Correctional Association. 

The American Correctional Chaplains Association now stands 

ready to further help by promoting the certification of all chaplains 

in prisons across the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman KYL. Thank you very much, Chaplain Rogers. 

34

Let me begin with a couple of questions, and, Professor Waller, 

I would like to ask you two related questions. As Senator Sessions 

noted earlier, our freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. 

We take it very seriously in our country. How do you propose in 

view of that that the U.S. Government approach this matter of radical Islam as a national security threat? And as a related matter, 

how do you respond to those who would say that even expressing 

this concern indicates some kind of prejudice against Muslims generally? 

Mr. WALLER. This is a very touchy subject, but in sum, we are 

not looking at this as a religious problem. It is a national security 

problem. It is a political movement. Anytime you have a movement 

that talks about overthrowing the Constitution of the United States 

in the case of a lot of the Islamists and Wahhabis, it is ultimately 

to see the United States governed under sharia law. That steps 

from the religious to the political and certainly from protected First 

Amendment rights to something involving, you know, crying out for 

national security attention. 

Secondly, these groups have become very active in the political 

process using their religious name as a mantle for their political 

operations, for example, here in Washington, but have fundamentally political agendas here which are, in the cases of, say, the 

American Muslim Council and others, weakening U.S. 

counterterrorism laws, certainly the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and other things where they are trying 

to work in the mainstream to convince lawmakers to weaken 

counterterrorism laws to the advantage of their own operatives. So 

this is where you bridge from the purely religious to the political, 

and I think if it is approached in that respect, one can press forward and try to solve the problem. 

The other thing with people using the racism and bigotry argument, as we have encountered a lot, is that they are trying to silence debate on this. You see the groups in Washington, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, American Muslim Council, and 

others, are the lead ones crying racism and bigotry anytime an 

issue is brought up concerning the things we are talking about 

today. Certainly the founder of a lot of these groups, Abdurahman 

Alamoudi, who was just arrested 2 weeks ago on charges of smuggling Libyan money, financing terrorism, and using foreign money 

to fund his political operations here, was one of those who was saying that the arrest of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and 

the trials was racist and bigoted and that the arrest of other really 

hard-core terrorism cases was just proof of American’s racism. So 

you really cannot put much stock into people who don’t discuss this 

on the issues. 

Chairman KYL. Do you personally draw the distinction that was 

made earlier with the first panel involving what somebody labeled 

the mainstream Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam, do you draw 

the distinction that was drawn earlier between those two very 

large representations of Islam and the group that you would refer 

to as the Wahhabists or the Islamists? 

Mr. WALLER. Well, the Wahhabists are a part of the Sunni denomination of Islam, but you have—a lot of the groups that operate 

here under Saudi funding or guidance or whatever, the individuals 

35

who lead them are not even by their own admission observant 

Muslims, yet they will come to this panel or elsewhere to say how 

Muslim rights are being violated, or whatever else. So it is kind of 

like, say, Catholics for a Free Choice, which no Catholic bishop 

would ever say is a Catholic organization, but the organizers have 

an agenda that they want to push so they use that label. 

The Irish Republican Army, the Provisional Irish Republican 

Army used that label as well, calling itself a Catholic organization, 

when, of course, the Catholic Bishop of Dublin condemned it as a 

terrorist group. So you have a lot of groups, again, using religion 

for their own purposes. And then some, in the case of the 

Wahhabis, wanting to dominate the voice of Islam and basically 

control the Islamic faith, not only in other countries but here as 

well. 

Chairman KYL. Chaplain Rogers, time is short. Just one quick 

question. You mentioned the potential problem of contract or volunteer chaplains, not being able to vet those as well. I presume that 

you are referring to a potential problem and not specific cases. But 

do you know of any situations where there may be a problem involving terrorism or radical preaching involved in the volunteer or 

contract chaplains that you mentioned? 

Mr. ROGERS. My experience in Wisconsin, and maybe similar to 

other chaplains, where you have someone contracted in that may 

misspeak inappropriately in a worship service in an institution, 

bringing in materials and content that may rile up inmates, and 

they would have to be counseled, or sometimes they will be—they 

are statused to be removed as a service provider. But as far as specific kind of recruiting potential terrorists using the natural discontent some inmates have, we don’t see that, I think, across the 

country. I think there are certain pockets, but there is more of a 

problem with, let’s say, the States or the people who are responsible to oversee the program aren’t trained, aren’t qualified. 

Chairman KYL. So the vetting process is a very important part 

of this entire process of selecting chaplains. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Chairman KYL. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sabree, you are a chaplain? Is that right? 

Mr. SABREE. That is correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And could you tell me where you are assigned and practice? 

Mr. SABREE. I am assistant manager of chaplaincy for the Georgia Department of Corrections. I have been assistant manager, also 

acting director, since 1988. Prior to that I served as clinical chaplain at the State’s maximum security prison in Reidsville, Georgia. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask you 

this question as someone who is an Islamic chaplain. I think you 

know about the kind of militant tilt that some have given to Islam, 

which is not the real Islam—shahid, jihad, a change of concepts for 

the purposes of really inciting violence, for practicing hate, for 

turning an inner struggle into an outer war. How would you advise 

us to beware of this? How would you advise us to be able to prevent this from happening? 

36

Mr. Waller is not the only one, and I do a lot of open-source reading. I think there is no question but that there is an attempt to 

penetrate universities and prisons to develop recruitment for militant causes. With respect to the chaplaincy, how would you advise 

us to try to see that that does not get established inside Federal 

prisons, inside the Department of Defense detention facilities? 

Mr. SABREE. I think that trying to maintain certain competencies, certain standards is very important, I think also getting 

information from reliable Islamic sources. The community I belong 

to under the leadership of W. Dean Mohammed is actually the largest Islamic community in America and is made up primarily of indigenous Muslims here. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is it Shiite? 

Mr. SABREE. No. It is Sunni, it is Muslim. It is not under the 

Shiite banner, but you would basically Sunni Muslim. But for Muslims, we regard all Muslims as ones that follow the Sumna. Basically, when you look at some of the issues that I have been listening to in terms of endorsement, those in the military, I know personally some of these people. Abdul Rashid, for instance, the first 

military chaplain, was a member of our community. But in order 

to get endorsement or get into the military chaplaincy, he had to 

get endorsement by the only recognized Islamic body at that time 

by the military, which was the American Muslim Council, even 

though he belonged to another group of Muslims. 

And I think in terms of you have to look systematically, Islam 

is relatively new in America, and you don’t have the educational 

institutions established in terms of seminaries and theological 

schools that allow people to have that history in terms of being 

educationally qualified for some of those positions. So that kind of 

pushes them towards those facilities, those institutions that do 

have those resources, and a lot of those resources are foreign-funded. And you are talking about people that do not have access to intelligence information. 

If you have got such a distinguished panel here that was before 

us and the Senate Committee can’t say who is funding these organizations, how can you expect a lone chaplain to know what was 

behind some of the funding of some of these groups that may have 

given them access to make haj, which is a fundamental principle 

in the religion? Prior to 9/11, September 11th, nobody viewed Saudi 

Arabia as a threat to the U.S. In fact, they were our allies in the 

first Gulf War. And to go back in time and say prior to 9/11 somebody who received some assistance to make a haj connects them to 

terrorists I think is basically an error in judgment. And I think 

that we have to continue to try to ensure that minimum qualifications and associations like the American Correctional Association, 

which I have been a member of for over 15 years, keeps pushing 

professionalism of chaplains, and in those State jurisdictions and 

Federal jurisdictions, you have oversight over people that are hired 

in those positions. 

And just in my position as a supervisor over chaplains in Georgia, whenever we have any chaplain—because we can find radicals 

in any religion. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right, right. 

37

Mr. SABREE. And they can find themselves in positions, sometimes. And we have to have oversight in terms of monitoring. We 

have to have good supervision. We have to have good training. We 

have to make sure that we are not negligent in our entrustment, 

of what we entrust with people. We have to make sure that we are 

not negligent in our retention once we do find these things out. 

And I think that is what is needed in terms of future prevention 

of allowing the professionalism to go down to the point where you 

have all sorts of people having access to a population that is sometimes already angry and mad with the establishment. And that is 

where you begin to let things grow in the wrong direction. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now, how would you ferret this out, going in 

the wrong direction? 

Mr. SABREE. Basically by maintaining continuing supervision, 

continuing oversight in terms of what is actually being given in 

terms of chaplaincies, duties and responsibilities, and just really 

monitoring those activities. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you believe that how the organization is 

funded—you mentioned that because Islam is new in this country, 

much of the financing comes from overseas. And, of course, we 

know particularly with respect to militant Wahhabism that a lot of 

that is funded by the Government of Saudi Arabia. How would you 

weed out militant Wahhabism? 

Mr. SABREE. By requiring that all chaplains are certified by a 

larger body. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. A larger body than just the organizations, 

the three that we mentioned today? 

Mr. SABREE. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you have any thoughts on what the larger 

body should be? 

Mr. SABREE. Associations—take, for instance, the American Correctional Chaplains Association has a certification process. Different religious judicatories have endorsement, but certification is 

an ongoing process that really helps the person maintain professional standards and basically looks at personal and professional 

competency in terms of continuing in those lines of development. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. One quick last question. My staff just showed 

me the Code of Ethics. Are you saying that the American Correctional Chaplains Association really should be one of the endorsing 

organizations that the Federal Government would use? 

Mr. ROGERS. It would be—can I speak? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Of course. 

Mr. ROGERS. It would be the group that would be after endorsement, generally. Sometimes the individual could be certified possibly prior to endorsement, but just like hospital chaplains, almost 

all hospital chaplains are certified. They seem to have a very commonly understood national standard. I don’t know why we have the 

problem in corrections. I mentioned there are so many different jurisdictions. If all the jurisdictions said, well, we should have certified chaplains, and we are the recognized national organization 

that does certification for chaplains in the correctional setting. I 

think that would assist a lot. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think that is very helpful. 

Thank you both very much. 

38

Chairman KYL. Senator Durbin? 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Waller, is it fair to conclude that you do not personally believe that all Muslims, people of the Islamic faith, support terrorism and violence? 

Mr. WALLER. No, absolutely not. If it wasn’t for a lot of Muslims 

here, I wouldn’t know—we wouldn’t have learned a lot of what we 

have learned. 

What we found was a lot, especially Muslims who emigrated here 

from the Middle East and other places, fled Wahhabism, many of 

them. They came to the United States to build a normal life. They 

go to their mosque here, and all of a sudden, they find that it is 

being taken over by the Wahhabis. And then they— 

Senator DURBIN. Would you also concede that some Muslims in 

that category of innocence are unfairly discriminated against because of our efforts to find the roots of terrorism? 

Mr. WALLER. Everybody is. I mean, I have been stopped at the 

airport security eight of my last ten flights. Does that mean I have 

been unfairly, you know, taken aside? 

Senator DURBIN. Join the crowd. 

Mr. WALLER. Yes. So everybody has. So the point is everybody 

has to— 

Senator DURBIN. But you do not think particularly that people of 

Muslim religion are being discriminated against, or people of Arab 

background because of fears of terrorism in this country? 

Mr. WALLER. I think some people feel that way. I think at some 

levels, certainly at the FBI, they are sort of bending over the opposite way to go out of their way not to. 

Senator DURBIN. Let’s pursue that for a second. I have several 

articles that you have written here for the Washington Times and 

Insight magazine. One group that you have focused on was the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom. You have written a 

lengthy article about this coalition, and you have identified some 

15 different groups that are part of this coalition. You say of this 

coalition: ‘‘They have joined forces in an attempt to cripple U.S. law 

enforcement and to facilitate terrorist support activities inside the 

country.’’ And one of the groups that you identified as part of the 

coalition here is a group called the American Muslim Council, and 

here is what you said: ‘‘The American Muslim Council and the 

American Muslim Foundation share the same Washington offices, 

attempt to enter the mainstream dialogue with Christians and 

Jews. In reality, the group’s key man, former executive director, 

current board member, Abdurahman Alamoudi, publicly proclaimed 

in October 2000, ‘We are all supporters of Hamas. I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.’’’ 

And then in another article you make note of something which 

I would like to point out for the record. In June of 2002, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, a man 

whom I respect very much, from the San Francisco area, who I 

think is doing a find job, you say that he was under orders from 

the White House to speak to the convention of this American Muslim Council, causing a rift and division within the FBI. 

Are you saying that the Director of the FBI spoke to a convention 

of a group that is, as you describe them, joining forces in an atVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
39

tempt to cripple U.S. law enforcement and to facilitate terrorist 

support activities? 

Mr. WALLER. Director Mueller was under a lot of pressure either 

to speak or not to speak at that council. 

Senator DURBIN. He spoke. 

Mr. WALLER. He did. And the FBI press office, amongst the criticism of him speaking there, issued a statement saying that the 

American Muslim Council is one of the most mainstream Muslim 

groups in America today, which is completely fallacious. The founder and head of the council and then the head of the American Muslim Foundation— 

Senator DURBIN. Is under indictment. 

Mr. WALLER. He is under indictment now, but he has a long public record of not only supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, but— 

Senator DURBIN. But can you explain— 

Mr. WALLER. —a variety—the group that tried to assassinate— 

Senator DURBIN. Can you explain to me how the Director of the 

FBI ended up speaking to the convention of the American Muslim 

Council that you have identified as a terrorist sympathizer group 

in America? How did this happen? 

Mr. WALLER. I think it because the FBI doesn’t value opensource intelligence. I think it is because there is a bifurcation of the 

FBI between the agents on the ground and the leadership here in 

Washington. I know for a fact that FBI agents in the field were 

very upset and demoralized that their Director was— 

Senator DURBIN. So you think Director Mueller made a mistake 

in speaking to this group? 

Mr. WALLER. I think he made a big mistake. 

Senator DURBIN. And you believe he was doing this, as you have 

written, under orders from a—let me get this. I want to correctly 

quote you. ‘‘Senior administration officials tell Insight’’—this is 

what you have written—‘‘that FBI Director Robert Mueller was 

under orders from an unnamed senior White House campaign 

strategist to appease Muslim and Arab American groups that have 

been complaining noisily that Federal counterterrorism efforts are 

impinging on their civil rights.’’ Who was that White House strategist? 

Mr. WALLER. I can’t say who the strategist was, but I can only 

say I stand by my statement. 

Senator DURBIN. You believe that someone in the White House 

ordered FBI Director Mueller to speak to the American Muslim 

Council convention in June of 2002 and that this group is at least 

sympathetic if not supportive of terrorism? 

Mr. WALLER. It cuts both ways. Yes, it cuts through both political 

parties, both this and the past administration— 

Senator DURBIN. No, no, no. Please stick to your party. Please 

answer this question. Was he addressing a group— 

Mr. WALLER. He addressed a group— 

Senator DURBIN. —under orders from the White House that you 

think is sympathetic to terrorism? 

Mr. WALLER. Yes. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

40

Mr. WALLER. But it goes both ways. It goes both administrations, 

it goes both parties. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Chairman KYL. Is there anything else you want to say? In other 

words, we don’t want to cut any witness off from explaining an answer. I think that is an important question and an important answer, and if there is anything else you would like to add, go ahead 

and do it. 

Mr. WALLER. If I may, Senator Kyl, because Alamoudi is really 

the crux of what we are talking about here. He emigrated here in 

1979. In the 1980’s and up to 1990 he was executive assistant to 

the president of the SAAR Foundation in Northern Virginia. That 

is one of the main financers of these movements we are talking 

about. Later found to have—to serve as a front for international 

terrorist activity, and subsequently under investigation by Operation Green Quest. 

He founded the American Muslim Council in 1990 and the American Muslim Foundation is in the same office building, financed by 

the SAAR family. In the next year, 1991, he created the American 

Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, which was 

talked about today, whose purpose is to certify Muslim chaplains 

hired by the military. 

In or about 1993, he had exerted political influence because, like 

any administration, they want to expand their electoral support 

and had somehow gotten close to people of influence in the administration, who in 1993 certified his organization as one of two vetted and endorsed Muslim chaplains. 

Meanwhile, he was vocal attacking arrests of terrorists, including 

Mohammed Solome, who was arrested 10 days after the first World 

Trade Center bombing in 1993. From 1993 to 1998, the Pentagon 

retained Alamoudi on an unpaid basis to nominate and vet Muslim 

chaplain candidates for the military. 

In 1994, he was complaining that the judge was picking on the 

1993 World Trade Center bombers because of their religion. He 

was openly defending Hamas over the years. He became a naturalized—all this is before he became a U.S. citizen. He had all this 

access. In 1996, he became a citizen, swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. He spoke out in response to the arrest of Hamas political leader Mousa Abu Marzook. 

And he illustrated his two-track approach to how he operates and 

how his organizations operate. Abroad it is violence; here it is 

working through the system. 

He said, ‘‘I think if we are outside this country we can say, ‘Oh, 

Allah, destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this 

country is to change it.’’ 

He protested Federal airline regulations concerning terrorism security. In January 2001, he attended a conference in Beirut with 

leaders of terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda. Last year, he 

protested the arrest of convicted cop killer Imam Jamal Abdullah 

Al-Amin, formerly H. Rap Brown, who twice held a senior office position within his organization. 

In fact, last June, to address a previous question, June of 2002, 

while the FBI Director was getting ready to speak at the American 

Muslim Council conference, the AMC executive director, Eric BickVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
41

ers, was asked several times on Fox News and on MSNBC if he 

would denounce Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic jihad by name. He 

would not. He was asked to denounce Al-Qaeda by name. He would 

not. And in one instance, I believe it was on Chris Matthews, he 

called Al-Qaeda ‘‘a resistance movement.’’ This is before the FBI 

Director spoke at the conference. This is the executive director of 

the organization running the conference. And then the FBI came 

out with a public statement calling the AMC ‘‘the most mainstream 

Muslim group in the United States.’’ 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word? 

Chairman KYL. Sure, Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. It is my understanding Mr. Alamoudi was not 

with the American Muslim Council when the FBI Director spoke 

to the group. Having said that, though, I find myself in a curious 

position here defending Director Robert Mueller, and the reason I 

raised this issue and made it part of this discussion is I think we 

need to take care with the statements we make and the witnesses 

we invite. Some of the things that have been said, for instance, 

about Director Mueller relative to his appearance before the American Muslim Council I think were out of line. I think he is a patriotic American who works night and day to keep this country safe 

and has reached out to the American Muslim community to try to 

establish some sort of relationship to help aid us in this war on terrorism. 

Some of the writings of Mr. Waller would lead to the opposite 

conclusion, and I think they are wrong. I am not of the same party 

of Mr. Mueller, but I respect him greatly. I think he is doing a fine 

job. And I think it really is a caution to all of us to take care that 

when we start finding those guilty of terrorism, we don’t paint with 

such a wide brush that we include Muslims and Muslim organizations, which may include people who have no interest in terrorism 

whatsoever. And I think some of the things Mr. Waller has written 

have gone over that line. 

Chairman KYL. Well, I certainly share your sentiment that Robert Mueller is a patriotic American and have a lot of personal affection for him as well. 

By the way, by way of clarification, was Alamoudi involved with 

CAIR at the time that— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. AMC. 

Chairman KYL. Or I mean AMC at the time that the FBI Director spoke? I don’t know that you had said that he was, but do you 

know whether he was? 

Mr. WALLER. He chaired the conference. He is on the board of 

AMC, but he left the AMC a few years ago to be day-to-day operations as head of the American Muslim Foundation, which is the 

501(c)(3) part of the AMC. 

Chairman KYL. Okay. But, anyway, he chaired the conference at 

which the FBI Director spoke. 

Mr. WALLER. Yes, and the FBI indictment from a couple of weeks 

ago said that even though he was not officially head of the American Muslim Council, that the Federal authorities believe that he 

still controls the organization. 

This is part of the problem of dealing with certain groups here, 

and it is never besmirching the Director’s patriotism. It is quesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:22 May 11, 2004 Jkt 093254 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93254.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
42

tioning his judgment and political wisdom, and those are two—I 

draw a very strong distinction, because I am also an admirer of the 

FBI Director. But I think there is a lot of political pressure to prove 

that this is not a war on Islam, and I think politicians from both 

parties are often too anxious to get involved with or to speak before 

or otherwise legitimize groups that they really haven’t done the 

background check on. And we criticized the Director at the time. 

I think it was the correct thing to do. I think also, in retrospect, 

many in the FBI believe the same because the FBI is being invited 

to these organizations to speak again and they are no longer sending representatives. 

Chairman KYL. Okay. Well, thank you very much to all the members of this panel. I hope that we have cast some additional light 

on the questions that we asked at the beginning. I think we have, 

and I think there is a lot of follow-up that is going to be done as 

well. 

We will be having another hearing in this series. I cannot announce the date right now, but I think in the next 2 or 3 weeks, 

look for another hearing of this Subcommittee on related subjects. 

I thank all of you for attending, and, again, thank you to our witnesses. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

[Additional material is being retained in the Committee files.]

43


93254.001
44


93254.002
45


93254.003
46


93254.004
47


93254.005
48


93254.006
49


93254.007
50


93254.021
51


93254.022
52


93254.008
53


93254.009
54


93254.010
55


93254.011
56


93254.012
57


93254.013
58


93254.014
59


93254.015
60


93254.016
61


93254.017
62


93254.018
63


93254.019
64


93254.020
65


93254.023
66


93254.024
67


93254.025
68


93254.026
69


93254.027
70


93254.028
71


93254.029
72


93254.030
73


93254.031
74


93254.032
75


93254.033
76


93254.034
77


93254.035
78


93254.036
79


93254.037
80


93254.038
81


93254.039
82


93254.040
83


93254.041
84


93254.042
85


93254.043
86


93254.044
87


93254.045
88


93254.046
89


93254.047
90


93254.048
91


93254.049
92


93254.050
93


93254.051
94


93254.052
95


93254.053
96


93254.054
97


93254.055
98


93254.056
99


93254.057
100


93254.058
101

Æ


93254.059