Good morning, Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy and distinguished
members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity
to discuss the material support statutes as a vital
component of the FBI's investigative mission. I will
discuss the application of the statutes to our counterterrorism
operations, including examples of our successes.
Since 9/11 the FBI's Counterterrorism program has
made comprehensive changes to meet its primary mission
of
detecting, disrupting, and defeating terrorist operations
before they occur. We have spent the past two and a
half years transforming operations and realigning resources
to meet the threats of the post-September 11th environment.
As part of this transformation,
the FBI has undertaken a number of initiatives to improve
information sharing
and coordination with our national and international
partners. We are committed to the interagency partnerships
we have forged through our Joint Terrorism Task Forces
(JTTFs). Likewise, the FBI is committed to fostering
international partnerships, and recognizes the critical
role they play in our ability to develop actionable
intelligence. To be fully successful, however, these
partnerships must have the legal tools necessary to
investigate the entire range of terrorist activities,
including the provision of material support.
U.S. Counterterrorism
operations have been significantly enhanced by the
enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, which
authorized increased information sharing between the
intelligence and law enforcement communities not only
internationally and domestically, but also within the
FBI. The USA PATRIOT Act also authorized the use of
existing investigative techniques that were previously
not allowed in terrorism investigations. The Act expanded
our ability to pursue those who provide material support
or resources to terrorist organizations. These changes
have allowed the FBI to be more proactive and strengthened
our ability to fuse law enforcement and intelligence
information, to better recognize and address terrorist
threats.
To prevent terror attacks, we need the tools to address
the full range of terrorist supporters, including those
in more peripheral roles. By aggressively attacking
the entire terrorist organization, we maximize our
ability to disable the networks on which successful
terrorist operations depend. To accomplish this goal,
we need the means to neutralize all persons acting
within the terrorist organizational structure. Terrorist
networks rely on individuals and organizations that
are proficient in fundraising, procurement, training,
logistics and recruiting. It is this type of terrorist
activity that is most prevalent in the United States.
Terrorist
groups committed to furthering their ideological objectives
through violence require both initial and
continuing support. In this context, material support
includes items related directly to terrorist attacks,
such as the procurement of explosives and munitions,
and the more distant support related to funding, recruitment,
logistics and communication resources required to sustain
a transnational terrorist network. For terrorists,
a lack of finances can hinder or thwart short-term
goals, and dismantle long-term agendas. Without funds,
terrorist groups suffer disarray, defection and, ultimately,
demise. The material support statutes, as broadened
by the USA PATRIOT Act, are vital components of our
investigative and preventative efforts targeting the
support and resource needs of terrorist networks.
The material
support statutes serve as the framework enabling
a thorough and aggressive prosecution of the
entire terrorist network—leaving the network
without the necessary resources or personnel to conduct
terrorist operations. These statutes, based upon a
fundamentally simple concept, prohibit material support
or resources to all individuals or entities that facilitate,
plan, or engage in terrorism. By criminalizing the
actions of those who provide, channel or direct resources
to terrorists or a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist
Organization, the material support statutes provide
an effective tool to intervene at the earliest possible
stage of terrorist planning in order to arrest terrorists
and their supporters well before their violent plans
come to fruition.
Every person who participates in or helps facilitate
terrorist activities should be subject to the material
support statutes. These statutes have been applied
to a wide variety of terrorist supporters. For example,
the first material support case to be tried before
a jury was a Charlotte, North Carolina investigation
in which a group of Lebanese nationals repeatedly purchased
large volumes of cigarettes in North Carolina, and
shipped them to Michigan for resale. This smuggling
scheme was extremely lucrative because of the high
profit margin from the cigarette tax disparity between
the two states. Some of the subjects were involved
in providing a portion of the illicit proceeds to Hizballah
affiliates and operatives in Lebanon. Others were involved
in providing funds to purchase dual-purpose military
equipment in aid of Hizballah. Several subjects were
ultimately charged with violations of the material
support statutes, and convicted of providing material
support to a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
The main subject was sentenced to 155 years in federal
prison. As a result of this case, material support
charges have been used in other similar cigarette smuggling
cases in Detroit.
A recent drugs-for-weapons case demonstrates the need
to investigate supporters of terrorism and, given the
implications, underscores the urgency and priority
material support investigations require. Between April
and September 2002, a group allegedly negotiated with
undercover law enforcement agents for the sale of 600
kilograms of heroin and five metric tons of hashish.
The subjects also allegedly negotiated with undercover
law enforcement for the purchase of four Stinger anti-aircraft
missiles, which they indicated were to be sold to personnel
in Afghanistan. The subjects were charged with conspiring
to provide material support. Two of the subjects pled
guilty to federal violations and one is awaiting trial.
Other examples
of successful material support cases involve persons
in the U.S. training for violence overseas.
The FBI, through the Joint Terrorism Task Forces across
the country, has disrupted and dismantled jihad terrorist
cells in American cities including Seattle, Portland,
Buffalo, and most recently in the D.C. suburbs of northern
Virginia. Among other things, members of these cells
have engaged in military style training exercises,
acquired weapons, attended Al-Qaeda training camps,
and attempted to travel to wage jihad.
Another
material support investigation identified an Al-Qaeda
facilitator in the U.S. who was conducting
pre-operational surveillance of potential U.S. targets
for Al-Qaeda. The subject is in custody and ultimately
pled guilty to providing material support to Al-Qaeda.
The subject admitted casing the Brooklyn Bridge and
identifying other potential U.S. targets for Al-Qaeda
operations. The material support statutes provided
the authority to disrupt this terrorist plan while
it was being conceived, well before it could come to
fruition.
More
challenging material support cases involve the funding
of designated terrorist organizations through
the cover of charitable front companies frequently
referred to as Non-Governmental Organizations, or
NGOs. An investigation involving the Executive Director
of
the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF) illustrates
the usefulness of the material support statutes in
these types of investigations. BIF was a Chicago,
Illinois-based charity long recognized by the IRS
as a non-profit
organization. The group's purposely ambiguous objectives
were, ostensibly, to provide humanitarian relief
aid. However, the recipients of the "humanitarian aid" were
ultimately revealed to be terrorist groups, including
Al-Qaeda. The October 2002 indictment described a multi-national
criminal enterprise that, for at least a decade, used
charitable donations from unwitting Muslim-Americans,
non-Muslims and corporations to covertly support Al-Qaeda,
the Chechen Mujahideen, and armed violence in Bosnia.
The indictment alleged that BIF was operated as a criminal
enterprise that engaged in a pattern of racketeering
activity. In addition to fund-raising, the group acted
as a conduit through which other material support was
provided to further the violent activities of the mujahideen
and other terrorist organizations. The Executive Director
ultimately pled guilty to a material support–based
racketeering conspiracy violation and admitted that
donors to BIF were misled into believing their donations
would support peaceful causes when, in fact, funds
were expended to support violence oversees.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance
of the material support statutes to our ongoing
counterterrorism
efforts. The statutes are sufficiently broad to include
terrorist financers and supporters who provide a
variety of resources to terrorist networks.
The statutes provide
the investigative predicate which allows intervention
at the earliest possible stage of terrorist planning
to identify and arrest terrorists and supporters
before a terrorist attack occurs. These statutes
form a core
aspect of the FBI's terrorism prevention strategy.
It is readily apparent that terrorists open bank
accounts, use the internet, communicate, recruit
and train personnel,
and procure equipment to support their objectives.
Those who provide such support or resources are as
culpable as those who actually carry out terrorist
attacks. Having a statute directed at the support
stage provides a crucial, early opportunity
for prevention.
Moreover, if the terrorist sources of support are
not successfully targeted and prosecuted, those
facilitators
remain capable of supporting future terrorist activities.
Terrorist networks cannot exist or operate with a
radical ideology as their sole asset; these networks
need support
and resources. From an intelligence perspective,
the material support statutes are crucial to preventing
attacks by limiting, if not denying, the necessary
support and resources to these terrorist networks.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today and to highlight the FBI's investigative
efforts and successes. It would be my pleasure
to answer
any questions you may have.