1.Matthew Levitt — Direct/Cross/Redirect (Part 3)
356 linesP R O C E E D I N G S
COURT CLERK: All rise for the Court and the jury.
(The Court and jury enter the courtroom at 9:10 a.m.)
COURT CLERK: Be seated.
THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
JUROR: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: May I proceed?
THE COURT: Mr. Chakravarty.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Thank you, your Honor.
MATTHEW LEVITT, Ph.D., resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. CHAKRAVARTY:
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Good morning, Dr. Levitt. This is not Berlin but I hope this did not disrupt your plans too much. Thank you very much for being with us.
MATTHEW LEVITT: Berlin has nothing on Boston.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: We were talking yesterday about some of the writing and some of the documents that you had reviewed that comported to some of the writing. I'd like to call up before we get back to that an additional exhibit which is in evidence, 1143-97. Do you recognize this screen? It's a paused screen of a video?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And what is that?
MATTHEW LEVITT: "25 Promises of Allah to the Believers."
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And was that another Awlaki lecture?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Was that one of the popular ones that he had?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Now, if we could go back to the split screen, Mr. Bruemmer, 830 on the one side, page 3.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I think, Dr. Levitt, we were down to -- we had just done "we were promised victory and we will surely get it." Can you read the next line, please?
MATTHEW LEVITT: "Now, I don't like killing innocent people. It is forbidden in Islam. But due to said..." bullet hole "...it is allowed."
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Is this a concept that you're familiar with?
MATTHEW LEVITT: It is.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And what's the significance of it?
MATTHEW LEVITT: The significance is that as I believe we discussed yesterday, this idea that normally killing innocent people would be forbidden but under certain circumstances it becomes permissible, even praiseworthy, even a personal obligation because of certain events, because of taking revenge, for example, for the acts of the West or the United States against Muslims around the world as we discussed yesterday.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Now, in this sentence it says that "it is allowed." What is "it" in this sentence?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, "it," in general, is -- referring back to the beginning of the sentence -- killing innocent people.
MR. BRUCK: If it please the Court, I am going to object to the witness explaining plainly written statements in which he has no more expertise than anybody else to understand plain English.
THE COURT: I think you're right as to this question and answer.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: If we could call up on the other screen 1142-88, page 3, please.
BY MR. CHAKRAVARTY:
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: This is another Inspire magazine?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Can you read starting from "however," the first full sentence?
MATTHEW LEVITT: "However, to bring down America, we do not need to strike big. In such an environment of security phobia that is sweeping America, it is more feasible to stage smaller attacks that involve less players and less time to launch, and thus we may circumvent the security barriers America worked so hard to erect. This strategy of attacking the enemy with smaller, but more frequent operations is what some may refer to as the strategy of a thousand cuts. The aim is to bleed the enemy to death."
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: This notion of innocent people, does that have a special connotation in the global jihad movement?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, within Islam it is forbidden to kill innocent people. In the global jihad movement there is a redefinition of who is and who is not innocent based on circumstances other than whether or not they are actually involved in some other action against you. You can no longer be an innocent if you're just walking down the street and are a citizen of, say, the United States.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And why are those people not innocent anymore?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Because by virtue of being a citizen of the United States, by participating in the elections for American leaders who then go on to approve actions which are perceived to be against Islam, against the Islamic -- the Muslim ummah, the Muslim nation, that Americans have some guilt for these actions.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Now, on the left side of the screen, Mr. Bruemmer, can we call up Exhibit 1451.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Now, this was also found in the boat. Have you seen this before?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I have.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And can you read it?
MATTHEW LEVITT: No. Sorry.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Does it say "Stop killing our..." and then an arrow "...innocent people and we will..." arrow "...stop"?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Now, was this proposal for a deal something that you're familiar with?
MATTHEW LEVITT: It is.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: What is it?
MATTHEW LEVITT: This is common within this literature that if only the West would stop killing innocent Muslims, then there would no longer be a need to carry out these reprisal attacks, to stand up in the defense of the defenseless Muslims who can't defend themselves against Western strikes, and that then these attacks would stop.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And is this also something that you saw in the literature that was relevant to this case?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Could we call up Exhibit 11 on the right side, 1142-91, page 15.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: This is the first issue of Inspire magazine. If you would read Question 5 here, and then I'll ask you to read the answer.
MATTHEW LEVITT: So this is from Inspire magazine. If memory serves, this is the question and answer that we referenced at one point yesterday. Someone is interviewing one of the leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This is Question 5. "What does al-Qaeda want from the West for it to stop targeting it?
"Answer: What we want from the West is one thing: To stop aggression and oppression against the Muslim nation and to withdraw out of its land. This solution was given by all of our leaders and on more than one occasion. The truce was offered by the one who has real authority to take such a decision on behalf of the Muslims, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, may Allah preserve him. His offer was refused. Whenever we offer a sound plan, they escalate in their stubbornness so we are left with no option but to defend ourselves and fight the transgressors."
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It concludes?
MATTHEW LEVITT: "If the West refrains from attacking us and oppressing our nation, we will refrain from them. Otherwise, we will have them drink from the same cup that they have the innocent from our nation drink from."
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And is this this concept of stop killing our innocent people and we will stop?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: That's all I have. Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Bruck?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUCK:
MR. BRUCK: Good morning, Dr. Levitt.
MATTHEW LEVITT: Good morning, sir.
MR. BRUCK: I'm David Bruck, representing Jahar Tsarnaev, and I've got a few things I would like to go over with you, if I could.
MATTHEW LEVITT: Absolutely.
MR. BRUCK: Thank you. You mentioned that you were a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury but you didn't tell us when. That was during the Bush administration. Is that correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes, sir.
MR. BRUCK: 2005-2007?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes, sir.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And much of your academic and your government work has -- and your work as a witness in criminal cases has concerned the financing of terrorist activity. Is that correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: A lot of it has. Not all of it by any stretch of the imagination. I do a lot of work on illicit finance including terror finance; a tremendous amount of work now on counter violent extremism or counter-radicalization, it's the same thing, the flow of foreign fighters and a host of other issues.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And the main focus of your work has been on the Middle East --
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: -- throughout your career?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And the main language in the Middle East is Arabic?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: Which is a language that you don't speak?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: You mentioned another language that you didn't speak that was relevant to this case but you didn't tell us which language that was.
MATTHEW LEVITT: There was at least one document that was provided to me that was written in Cyrillic script, Russian, perhaps, but I don't read it so I couldn't tell you.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. So at least one document that was written in what you think was Russian?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. But you couldn't read that either?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: And I take it you're not an expert in the history of Russia or Chechnya or Dagestan, the North Caucasus, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I've done a lot of work on the Chechen conflict as it relates to international jihad, but I'm not an expert in Russia or its history, no.
MR. BRUCK: Or in the culture and history of the North Caucasus except to the extent that it relates to your field of terrorism, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: And you've already told us that you're not an expert on Islam?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct. I have studied Islam and I have studied a lot about it, it's necessary for the work that I do, but I certainly don't consider myself an expert on religion, or Islam in particular.
MR. BRUCK: All right. You said that -- in talking about the process by which someone becomes radicalized, in your term, and then moves to violence, and I think I'm quoting you, that someone has to kind of hold your hand and pull you across that dividing line. And then you said, "There is a radicalizer in every case that we see," right?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes. And as we continue, that can be an individual --
MR. BRUCK: Yes?
MATTHEW LEVITT: -- an actual person; it can be virtual. And increasingly today it is virtual. It's increasingly rare to have an actual person face-to-face, two eyes into two eyes, radicalize an individual, but it does still happen.
MR. BRUCK: You weren't asked to find out to determine, or were you, who the radicalizer in this case was?
MATTHEW LEVITT: No; I was asked to review the materials that were provided to me, and that's what I did.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And those materials were entirely from Jahar's computer, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: His computer and I believe some MP3 players.
MR. BRUCK: And some MP3 files?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
MATTHEW LEVITT: In other words, I don't know if all of those were necessarily from his computer or from a -- I believe some of them were downloaded to an actual MP3 player, an iPod or something like that.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. About how many files in all did you look at?
MATTHEW LEVITT: A few dozen.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry. Two dozen?
MATTHEW LEVITT: A few dozen.
MR. BRUCK: A few dozen?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yeah, two or three dozen, maybe four dozen, something like that.
MR. BRUCK: Somewhere between 24 and 48 files total?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And I think you said that it was not your job to vet the information that you were given, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: In other words, not to -- in some cases, you know, to be able to vet whether this did, in fact, come from a person's computer, I'm in no position to do that. So in a case like this, whether called by prosecution or defense, I have to rely on what they've provided me, and it's up to the process, the proceedings in court, to determine, in fact, where those materials came from.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And in the process of not vetting the materials, you also didn't ask the prosecution for anything more than you were given?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I don't remember if I did or did not in this case. I do sometimes, if there's a need for it, if there's something that stands out, you know, a specific Inspire magazine as opposed to others. I don't recall if I asked for more information in this case.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Do you think if you had asked for something more, you might recall it?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Honestly, no. I do a lot of different work at a lot of different times and I don't recall every conversation.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. You told us yesterday that your job is to provide context to materials that you're given, whatever those are?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, that was a job that was given to me, and my job now is to -- whoever's asking me questions, to answer them as truthfully and honestly to the best of my ability, to be able to provide context. That's what the expert is for. I'm not a fact witness.
MR. BRUCK: And by "context," you meant the background in context to the 24, 36, 48 files that you were given?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That was part of the job that I was given. I was also given the task of explaining the context, the geopolitical context, of what was going on at the time; what was going on at earlier times, to be able to explain the context of some of those documents; and then, yes, to provide context and explanation of those documents of some of the individuals who are either mentioned in or the authors of these documents or lectures.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Were you given any files from Tamerlan Tsarnaev's computer?
MR. BRUCK: Were you given any recordings from Tamerlan Tsarnaev's computer, audio recordings about his discussions with -- concerning jihad in Russia that he conducted?
MR. BRUCK: Did the government tell you anything about when the materials that you've testified about appeared on each of the various devices that were found by law enforcement in this case?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Not to that extent. Not in -- not in each case to each device. There were -- I recall that there were certain documents, and I can't remember which, that I remember being told were accessed months, maybe a year, even, before the events at the marathon, but in general, no.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. So if it were, in fact, the case that the vast majority of the materials on Jahar's computer had actually been dumped there by a thumb drive that originated with Tamerlan, that's not your department?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I could certainly comment on it if you're asking me to. It wasn't what was asked of me by the prosecution. Are you asking me now?
MR. BRUCK: No. And the prosecution didn't give you any information about that?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That's not what I was asked to comment on.
MR. BRUCK: My question is: The prosecution didn't give you any information about where all these files originated from in terms of the various devices that were found?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Again, there might have been one or two cases where that came up, but that was not a focus and I don't remember getting that for each and every instance. The material that I was given was presented to me as this is material that was on the defendant's media.
MR. BRUCK: Were you given any information about Tamerlan's overseas travel to the Caucasus, to Dagestan and Chechnya in 2012 in connection with your work in this case?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Not by the prosecution. Obviously, I had heard about it beforehand, just as someone who follows these things professionally.
MR. BRUCK: But that was not something that you were asked to factor into your analysis in this case by the prosecution?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct. And my understanding is that it was because I was focused on the defendant and not the deceased.
MR. BRUCK: Your understanding was that you were to focus on the defendant and not on anyone else, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: The defendant's the person on trial, yes.
MR. BRUCK: Right. Is it fair to say that to understand -- to draw inferences from material that you find on someone's computer, it would be helpful to know where those materials came from and who provided them?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Not necessarily. The issue here is did the defendant access and was the defendant affected by, radicalized by these materials. I think as we discussed earlier you can show direct parallels between materials that were on those devices and the defendant's own writings. You can get these things directly off the Internet, you can be handed them from somebody else. At a certain point it almost doesn't make a difference where you got them from if you got them and then internalized them and were motivated and operationalized by them.
MR. BRUCK: Let me ask you this: If someone else got these materials first and internalized them and provided them to the defendant and also talked to the defendant, and harangued him and instructed him, would there be any way to tell whether the defendant's views and feelings had come from being talked to or had come from the materials on his computer?
MATTHEW LEVITT: We are all products of our -- the totality of our experience, so I can't get into the defendant's head. All I can tell you is that there are direct parallels between his statement and the statements of the materials that were on his devices. Could other people have hit these points too, maybe in that same verbatim language? Possibly. Could that have contributed to the radicalization? It could have. How much -- you know, as we discussed yesterday, how much can you parse out how much was a person affected by one particular issue or input than another is really difficult to say. At the end of the day, if a person is radicalized but -- by whatever inputs to the point -- to the extreme of carrying out violence against civilians, you've checked that box of radicalization no matter how it happened.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. So of course in weighing that and analyzing that, it's pretty much a given that if you only look at the materials in isolation on one person's computer, you're not going to be able to make any assessment of what the history of this process was; you can only describe the end product, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, in part the end product describes what happened. The end product is the defining moment of it all that makes it something beyond radical ideas which are protected and violence against civilians which is not. I don't know if there were other materials that if they had been provided to me could have given me more insight into the history of his radicalization, but I also could not have been a fly on the wall in the brothers' personal conversations. At the end of the day, what we do know for a given is what actually happened, the attack that took place, the defendant's statement, and the direct parallels between that statement and these materials.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Some of these 24, 48, 36 files were very long, weren't they?
MATTHEW LEVITT: They were.
MR. BRUCK: He had a book called the Book of the End. Do you know what that is?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Not offhand, no. There was lots of material. And when it came to books, I did not read every book that was -- the copies of which, or the covers -- copies of covers of which were provided to me.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. The Book of the End, you are not aware that is a classic work of Islamic scholarship written in 17th-18th century, which is the edition he had in English on his computer, 748 pages long?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I'm familiar with the book. I may even have it on my shelf. But I did not review it for purpose of this case.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Even though it was one of the files -- was it one of the files you were provided, or do you know?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I was not provided this file, to the best of my recollection. There were -- I believe there were pictures of the covers of certain books, and this may or may not have been one of them.
MR. BRUCK: Now, when I say "book," I mean a PDF, a computer file. It doesn't ring a bell?
MATTHEW LEVITT: As I said, the name rings a bell. I don't think I was given this file. I'm quite certain I was not given this file.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Were you shown "The Slicing Sword"?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Possibly.
MR. BRUCK: You don't remember?
MR. BRUCK: Do you have a list with you of the 24 or 36 or 48 files you were given?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I don't. I don't.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Do you remember that you -- that they included various issues of Inspire magazine?
MATTHEW LEVITT: They did.
MR. BRUCK: And other than that, your memory is hazy?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I believe you have a copy of my report which gets through some of them, and I'm sure the prosecution could provide you with a list of things I was provided. But, A, over the course of the time of my preparation I reviewed many, many things, including many things that did not make it into the report, which I was not commenting on or not asked to comment on, and because I cover these types of issues professionally outside of this case and the vast majority of my time is not on this case, it's very difficult sometimes to remember did you see this particular document in this context or in another context.
MR. BRUCK: Now, a lot of the materials on this computer concerns concepts of the end times, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct, from the materials that I saw.
MR. BRUCK: And this is the idea that Quranic prophecy predicts signs, in fact, Awlaki has devoted many lectures that were on the computer to interpreting historical events and recent events as showing that the end times are near?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: And this will lead up to huge conflagration and really the end of the world and leading up to the day of judgment, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Right.
MR. BRUCK: And people who internalize this, these theological concepts, really think that we've come very close to the end of the world?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I'm not in a position to comment on what they or you or the defendant really truly do believe or not. There is a delta between how these things are interpreted by, for lack of a good term, kind of mainstream Muslim thought and the radicals. That I can tell you. But I can't tell you what any particular individual actually is thinking.
MR. BRUCK: You talked about the "Hereafter Series" which you said on its face, at least, is not jihadi; it is Awlaki's discussion of what happens after death, essentially, in his view of Islam?
MATTHEW LEVITT: In the context of there are Awlaki lectures that are about Islam, there are Awlaki lectures that are about -- explicitly about jihad. And this is one that I put in the former category.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Okay. And there were -- the "Hereafter Series" includes about 24 or 22 audio files. They're each somewhere around an hour long?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That sounds right.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And those were found on the defendant's computer?
MATTHEW LEVITT: As I understand it.
MR. BRUCK: All right. And those are essentially religious lectures?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Again, they are religious lectures but there is a real consensus among practitioners, both within government and within -- among Islamic leaders about concern that these earlier series that don't explicitly call for violence do contribute to putting some on the path of violence. It was one of his former co-imams at a mosque here in the United States who explained this specifically.
MR. BRUCK: Sort of a gateway drug?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes, a gateway or a conveyor belt, that someone, you know, listens to these early lectures, as we discussed yesterday by someone who is not shrill, he's professorial, and becomes someone who's following this person's lecture series, then continues to follow that person's lectures as they get more explicitly violent.
MR. BRUCK: And the "Hereafter Series" goes into tremendous detail about the nature of paradise --
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: -- correct, and the nature of hell?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And the physical torments that await people in hell?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: The -- and makes the point over and over again that if someone understood what was awaiting them in hell, everyone would be a good Muslim and do what they should do?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I think that's the general theme.
MR. BRUCK: You described Awlaki as a very effective propagandist --
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: -- whose lectures had great allure for many, many listeners?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: For many vulnerable listeners. Let me rephrase that. For someone who did not have a strong background or education in Islam and was searching for Islamic ideas, to learn more about their faith online, Awlaki would be a very, very seductive source of information, would he not?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, of course it's important to note it's not like Awlaki owns the Internet. He's not the only voice out there. But, yes, Awlaki proved to be a seductive voice for all kinds of individuals, at risk and otherwise.
MR. BRUCK: And on the Internet when you find somebody like that, you can get a very distorted picture of how representative that person is?
MATTHEW LEVITT: You could, but I'd argue much more in the early years about Awlaki's sermonizing. By the time in question that we're discussing here today, news of who Awlaki was was commonplace. So a person who was just then choosing to listen to the Awlaki series almost certainly was not stumbling innocently into an exploration of Islam and happened to fall into an Awlaki lecture series, this is someone who's all over the news, the focus of U.S. government action. Quite popular in the popular media, that is.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Hundreds of thousands, millions of people have downloaded his material?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Many people. I don't know the number.
MR. BRUCK: Now, you said yesterday that -- you were describing the many different types of categories of people who are -- have shown -- proving to be vulnerable to the radical jihadi message. And you listed one group as young Muslims responding to a -- who feel excluded from their own societies, trapped in poverty or hopelessness and authoritarian regimes. That's one group, right?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I think that's from my report. Maybe not from yesterday, but yes.
MR. BRUCK: Right. But there were words to that effect yesterday. Maybe not -- as one example. Well, I'll go on. Another -- you mentioned another group, well off and well educated who live in Western democracies but struggle with issues of belonging and identity and feel -- find that the extremist message resonates?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: And then you didn't mention this yesterday but it is in your report, you wrote "Some either immigrants themselves or descendants of immigrants from countries suffering from war, natural disasters, political and/or economic oppression, war, et cetera, are drawn to this radical and violent narrative based on national and/or religious affinity for their ancestral lands and empathy for the suffering of family, friends or fellow nationals still suffering there"?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That's right.
MR. BRUCK: You went through the boat writing yesterday line by line with Mr. Chakravarty. Before I get to that, you looked at -- with him at Exhibit 1280, a tweet from 2012. "They will spend their money and they will regret it and they will be defeated." That was a line that was in Mr. Tsarnaev's Twitter feed, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: And you compared that to a somewhat similar statement by Awlaki?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I think it was a very similar statement, yes.
MR. BRUCK: Where does that line come from originally? I don't mean word for word, but do you know?
MATTHEW LEVITT: It has scriptural sources. I don't remember where.
MR. BRUCK: You don't remember where it's from. Is that right?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct, beyond the radical literature of the type we went through yesterday and the way -- the issue is not so much whether it has other antecedents but how within the radical ideological moue, how it is used.
MR. BRUCK: Would it surprise you to know that is a quote from the Qur'an?
MATTHEW LEVITT: No, I think I just told you it's from scripture.
MR. BRUCK: Scripture? Okay. Looking at the boat writing, can you tell us which passages are passages from the Qur'an or from the Hadith, from Islamic scripture?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Certainly not without it up here, but probably only one or two. As I said, and as you asked and answered, I don't consider myself a scholar in Islam or in the Qur'an.
MR. BRUCK: Well, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." Is that something that Mr. Tsarnaev got from Inspire magazine?
MATTHEW LEVITT: No. Of course, as we said yesterday, this is the Shahadah. This is the statement of faith. It is common to restate it in times of stress, especially when one thinks one is about to die. But this is -- as I think I said explicitly yesterday, there is nothing inherently extremist about the core statement of belief of the world's Muslims.
MR. BRUCK: When one is about to die, the profession of faith, the Shahadah, is something that a Muslim is likely to say or write, correct? Is that what you just told us?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes. I can say it again if you want.
MR. BRUCK: No. I just wanted to be sure. You told us about the term "innocent" -- there was a discussion a moment ago with Mr. Chakravarty about innocent civilians -- or innocent people -- excuse me -- and you explained some of the doctrine about why Americans would not be viewed as innocent. The writing in the boat actually used the phrase "innocent people," correct? "I don't like killing innocent people"?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I believe that's right. I haven't memorized it and it's not up on the screen, so I'll take your word for it.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Have you -- you read all the Inspire magazines?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Unfortunately.
MR. BRUCK: Can you think of a single place in Inspire magazine where Americans were described as innocent people?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, I said I've read them all; I haven't said I've memorized them all. And they are long and so I can't -- I can't answer that question.
MR. BRUCK: Have you ever in any al-Qaeda propaganda seen Americans referred to as "innocent people"?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I can't recall. And it's not impossible, as we saw in the literature that we were looking at just a few minutes ago, where there is this idea quite common --
MR. BRUCK: Let me interrupt you. I'm not asking about the idea; I'm asking about the phrase "innocent people."
MATTHEW LEVITT: Then asked and answered.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Then asked and answered.
MR. BRUCK: You don't remember?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I don't.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. You said yesterday that you thought the writing in the boat was addressed to the American public?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I'm sorry. Could you restate?
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry.
MATTHEW LEVITT: That's okay.
MR. BRUCK: You said yesterday you thought the writing in the boat was addressed to the American public?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: When someone recites the Shahadah, do you think that was addressed to the American public?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, in this context I think yes. I think this was a restatement of a self-identity. And again, putting in context, and I think as you said in an objection at one point, you don't actually need a whole lot of expertise if you understand some basic English grammar to be able to see what the note is trying to accomplish.
MR. BRUCK: As a matter of fact, these -- how long would it take -- I'm not asking for your opinion about the person who wrote this, I just have a simple question, which is: The statements -- the religious statements on the boat writing and the political statements, if you will, how long would it take someone to learn those slogans and those religious statements?
MATTHEW LEVITT: One could learn them quite quickly.
MR. BRUCK: Right.
MATTHEW LEVITT: I think as we showed yesterday and this morning, it would take some time to be able to go through all the literature that you can draw parallels from. But even that, you're talking potentially, you know, hours and days, not necessarily months and years, which gets to the issue we discussed yesterday: The radicalization has no one model and can happen very, very quickly.
MR. BRUCK: So the slogans and the religious statements that were found on the boat, one would not have to have read an enormous amount of material, let alone the 24, 36 or 48 files that you reviewed, in order to be able to write that on the boat?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I don't know how much or how little scientifically we could say you would have needed to have internalized. I don't know that this statement in the boat could have been written by someone who was not exposed to any of these ideas. There are clear parallels to these ideas. But having read through some of these materials, having listened -- or watched some of these materials, one could have then written this statement, yes.
MR. BRUCK: If -- and you've said before that a lot of this material could have come from being -- from conversation, from being talked to as well as from reading materials on the computer.
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, it's impossible to say, of course. It would have -- I think it would have been remarkable, if at all possible, for it to have only come from conversations given the very strong direct parallel to the text. It's uncommon for people in colloquial conversation to speak in the way that we've seen this text, whether it's Inspire magazine or some of these audio or video files. So you might have gotten some of the general ideas, but what was in part telling to me was how strong the parallels were to these specific texts.
MR. BRUCK: But they were parallels; they weren't quotes for the most part, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That's what happens when you paraphrase.
MR. BRUCK: Right. You can paraphrase something you've read, something you've been told, either one?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Therefore, when the paraphrase is particularly close to the text, that is a statement in and of itself.
MR. BRUCK: And you found these paraphrases to be particularly close to the text?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I do.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Bear with me just a moment.
MATTHEW LEVITT: Of course.
MR. BRUCK: You described yourself yesterday as a hired expert?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I don't know if I did but I have been hired, yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And at what rate?
MATTHEW LEVITT: $450 an hour.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Do you know how many hours you've put in?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Total, no, but -- and I bill in stages, so. But I imagine that, you know, yesterday and today will end up being probably about somewhere around 20 hours. Traveling here Sunday, yesterday, today traveling.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. But the 450 hours [sic] was for all of the work you did on the case, not only the two days that you've been in court?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct. It will be several thousand dollars.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And now, have you talked about your testimony with anybody after you -- court was finished yesterday?
MATTHEW LEVITT: No, other than to kind of tell my wife that I testified and I'm not going to Berlin and will be coming home early. No.
MR. BRUCK: But you listed your publications with Mr. Chakravarty. You didn't include that you were a rather prolific user of Twitter?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I am.
MR. BRUCK: And, in fact, you tweeted -- re-tweeted Boston Globe news accounts of your own testimony within an hour or two after getting off the witness stand yesterday?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I did. I re-tweeted three or four things, then thought better of it. I testify a lot. It's not often in the press. I obviously have not tweeted any of my own thoughts or even my own commentary, but I don't have a problem in tweeting media. My Twitter feed is all about the news in the world of terrorism. It's very common for me to tweet about cases. I've been very, very careful not to tweet about this one. And then after, whatever it was, two or three or four tweets, I thought better of it and stopped.
MR. BRUCK: You actually had been tweeting about this case, or re-tweeting some of the news coverage before yesterday, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: It's possible one off here or there, but normally in a case like this I would be tweeting a lot and would also be providing opinion, and that I have not been doing.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. You've just been re-tweeting to your 7,000 Twitter followers news articles about your own testimony here today?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Two or three articles yesterday, then thought better of it. And probably, you know, I don't know, a very small handful of articles in the whole period that this trial has been going on, whereas I would normally have been doing much more.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. One last thing. I wanted to ask you about one of the intellectual figures in the world jihadi movement as you described it. And before I get to that, you said to begin with that when you used the term "world jihadi movement" you're not actually referring to a movement that issues commands to followers, correct? Or at least in a case like this that's not what you meant?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Well, I'll tell you what I meant. I think the way I put it is there's no office, there's no address.
MR. BRUCK: Right.
MATTHEW LEVITT: I think the way I put it yesterday is there's no command in control. But it certainly is the case that commands or instruction are put out there. That's the nature of the impersonal communication, including some that we went through yesterday.
MR. BRUCK: And then whoever responds to it, responds?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.
MR. BRUCK: That's okay. I think you've answered my question. And you mentioned that one of the perhaps -- I don't know if you used the phrase the sort of intellectual grandfather of jihadi radicalism is a man named Sayyid Qutb?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I think I used that phrase more to describe Sheikh Abdullah Azzam. Sayyid Qutb we discussed yesterday as well, one of the founders of the Muslim brotherhood and one of the original proponents of the idea of near-term jihad, that is to say, the need to carry out jihad now as opposed to doing things, proselytizing, trying to bring Muslims back to good or traditional religious practice first and only then engaging in jihad. Sayyid Qutb's innovation was the idea that jihad should come in parallel, at the same time, and it would have a self-fueling cycle, whereby virtue of engaging in jihad, that would help to bring people back to proper observance.
MR. BRUCK: By the way, before I get back to Qutb, Azzam wrote "Join the Caravan" in the late 1980s. Isn't that correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That's right.
MR. BRUCK: And at that time you might say that he was with the Afghan mujahidin, or with the mujahidin in Afghanistan?
MATTHEW LEVITT: He was.
MR. BRUCK: Fighting against the Russians?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: And in that sense, he was allied with us?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I would not say that. I think that's a very common misperception.
MR. BRUCK: Let me put it differently. The United States was supporting the Afghan mujahidin, and so was he. Would that be a fairer way to put it?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Qutb: He was an Egyptian?
MATTHEW LEVITT: He was.
MR. BRUCK: Who wrote several books?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And had the ideas that you've described about jihad -- his ideas had great impact upon subsequent thinking of radical Islam. Is that a fair statement?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Within the radical community, yes.
MR. BRUCK: And he continues to this day to be a very influential and revered figure?
MATTHEW LEVITT: He's influential within this, frankly, let's be honest, very, very small subset of the world, small subset of the Muslim community, this radical element within it, and far less so with the vast majority of Muslims around the world.
MR. BRUCK: Sure. When I say "revered" I mean within the group of jihadists about whom you've been testifying?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: And who have, as in your description, posed this grave challenge to peace and security, correct --
MATTHEW LEVITT: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: -- in other countries?
MATTHEW LEVITT: And here.
MR. BRUCK: Qutb died in 1966. Is that correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Was he more famous before he died or after?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I think it's hard to say. He was famous when he lived and was imprisoned, and then he was killed by the regime and was famous then too, and maybe some might argue more so. I think it's safe to say that after he died he became more famous not necessarily because of his life or death but because his material book Milestones, in particular, was quoted and cited over and over and over and given much more prominence by being cited and referenced over and over.
MR. BRUCK: And Qutb's name and his work have lived on through the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, 2000 and to today?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Books have staying power.
MR. BRUCK: And when you say he was killed by the regime, he was sentenced to death and hanged by the government of Egypt, correct?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That's right.
MR. BRUCK: In 1966?
MATTHEW LEVITT: In 1966, I believe, yes.
MR. BRUCK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Briefly, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. CHAKRAVARTY:
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Dr. Levitt, Mr. Bruck asked you several questions about people who are introduced to Anwar Awlaki. Is everyone who is introduced to Anwar Awlaki's material -- does everyone become radicalized?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Absolutely not.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And does everyone who becomes radicalized by Anwar Awlaki's material actually engage in an act of violence?
MATTHEW LEVITT: No. As counsel noted many, many people have accessed Mr. Awlaki's sermons, both the earlier ones about the history of Islam and the later ones particular to jihad, and thankfully the vast majority of them have not, or have not yet, carried out acts of violence.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Is there a continuum between the thought, the radical thought, versus the action that is actually violent?
MATTHEW LEVITT: There's not a necessary continuum, that is to say, it is not an if-then statement, that if you are exposed to radical ideas, you will then necessarily, because of that motivation, be operationalized. I do believe that there is a necessity that it's -- I don't see how someone gets to the point of carrying out an act without having had gone through some point of the motivation. But many, many people are exposed to these ideas and do not carry out acts of violence for a whole host of different reasons.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Mr. Bruck asked you several questions about some tweets that the media had put out that you simply re-tweeted?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That's right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Did that happen last night? Is there something secret about your testimony here today?
MATTHEW LEVITT: I hope not.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: In fact, the whole world is watching the Twitter feed about your testimony. Is that fair to say?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes. And this was my -- this is my line of thought: Normally I would be providing commentary. I was wise enough not to do that; apparently not wise enough to say wait another couple of days before tweeting anything. I guess it's part of the live and learn that we all go through with news social media.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Fair enough. Now, Mr. Bruck asked you some questions about could someone learn the material that was written in the boat very quickly.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Speaking of tweets, can I ask Mr. Bruemmer to call up Exhibit 1280, please?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Now, this tweet that we talked about a little yesterday, this was a paraphrase from an Awlaki note. Is that right?
MATTHEW LEVITT: That's right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And is the date of this tweet April 16th, 2012?
MATTHEW LEVITT: It is.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It's about a year before the Boston Marathon bombing?
MATTHEW LEVITT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Bruck, anything else?
MR. BRUCK: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Levitt, thank you. You may step down.
MATTHEW LEVITT: Thank you, sir.
(The witness is excused.)
MR. WEINREB: Good morning, your Honor. The United States calls Colleen Tanguay.