Evan Kohlmann

Evan Kohlmann

Evan Francois Kohlmann (born 1978) is an American terrorism consultant specialising in the monitoring of websites. He ran his own website Globalterroralert.com and now works as a consultant for the NEFA Foundation. He frequently serves as a paid expert witness for the prosecution in terrorism trials and has recently assisted the prosecution in the US Military Commissions system – condemned by human rights groups.

Education

Kohlmann has a degree in International Politics from Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. He also minored in Islamic studies at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU), also part of Georgetown University.

His Honours Thesis was The Legacy of the Arab-Afghans: a Case Study (PDF), and his minors thesis at CMCU was An Afghan Ghazi: The Modernization and Reforms of Amir Amanullah Khan (PDF).

He has a Joint Doctorate in law (the equivalent of a UK law degree) from the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he says he focused on national security, and cybercrime law as well as taking separate classes at graduate school on Afghanistan.

He has never taught at a university and has no post-graduate qualifications, but he claims to be an academic expert rather than a journalist.

Terrorism Expertise

Kohlmann became involved in studying terrorism in 1997 when he was 18 and in his first year of University. He says Mamoun Fandy, then an Egyptian political science professor at the university - who he worked as a research assistant for - made a great impression on him.

In February 1998 Kohlmann began an internship at the Investigative Project, an Israel lobby Think-Tank set up by Terrorism Expert Steve Emerson. There he says he was responsible for tracking North African militant groups, and monitoring Islamist websites.

His first publication appeared in the The Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International that winter and was called ‘Trends in Anti-American Terrorism’. It was co-authored with John Eubanks (now a lawyer at Motley Rice), who was also at Georgetown University and working at the Investigative Project. In 1999 Kohlmann co-authored an article with Rita Katz which appeared in the winter issue of the Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International. The article was called 'Pandering to Terrorists" and it sought to address what it called three misconceptions about Hezbollah. These were (1) That Hezbollah is merely a Lebanese "resistance" group, solely interested in ending the Israeli occupation of Lebanese soil" (2) That "enmity of Hezbollah is restricted to the state of Israel" and (3) "That Hizballah's tactics and activities are within the scope of what a legitimate resistance group, rather than a terrorist organization, would undertake".

The article argued that Hezbollah were pursuing an aggressive war against the existence of Israel and the Western world more generally, and that in pursuit of that goal they had established "Terror University" from Iranian funds to "to increase terrorism against the West, Israel, and secular Arab governments". Katz also worked at The Investigative Project and now runs SITE (Search for International Terrorist Entities).

After graduating Kohlmann joined law school in August 2001, beginning a three year course intending as he put it to “be a conventional lawyer of some sort”. On September 11th Kohlmann "raced out of class" and called Rita Katz, who said "Time to get to work". Kohlmann then returned to his research at the Investigative Project. He also began work on his book Al-Qaida's jihad in Europe, the working title for which was The Martyrs of Bosnia: Al-Qaida's War of Terror in the Balkans.

At this time Kohlmann was referred to in publications as a “senior terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project” and he wrote several articles for the conservative National Review. He has referred to himself as being “basically the deputy head of the organisation” at this time. An article in The New Yorker states that Kohlmann and his friend Josh Devon both left the Investigative Project with Katz in 2002 and helped her set up SITEbut this seems to be contradicted by continued references to Kohlmann's role at the Investigative Project as well as testimony Kohlmann has given in court.

The last reference to Kohlmann being at the Investigative Project was in March 2004. He left law school that year and according to testimony he gave in cross-examination he set up his website Globalterroralert.com in January 2004 (although the domain was registered on 17 March 2004). In October 2004 he began working as an on-air terrorism analyst for MSNBC.

"Hi, I'm Evan Kohlmann." - Kohlmann appears as presenter in his 'Video Cybercast'

Kohlmann’s company was a one man operation he ran from his bedroom in a high rise apartment in Manhattan’s West Village. National Public Radio journalist Mary Louise Kelly met him in his bedroom/office, which she described as “a gallery of photos of Al-Qaeda leaders”. Kohlmann works at a desk two feet from his bed, and on that particular occasion wearing “what looks suspiciously like last night’s pyjamas”. In October 2007 Evan Kohlmann closed his website and redirected traffic to NEFA which he said would be publishing all his future work.

Kohlmann currently works as a senior investigator at the NEFA Foundation and is a contributor to Counterterrorism Blog. He has also served as a private consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the U.K. Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and Scotland Yard's SO-15 Counter Terrorism Command.

Political views

Despite his connections to the American right, Kohlmann claims to have liberal views. When the Guardian published an article on Kohlmann, based on Spinprofile’s research, suggesting he was ‘associated with rightwing or pro-Zionist organisation’, Kohlmann emailed the Guardian stating that he regarded the statements about his work 'potentially libelous'. Kohlmann wrote:

I am also described by Mr. Miller and your columnist as being the product of some kind of "right wing neocon" cabal. This is really quite comical. Anyone who does a simple Internet search will discover that I am, in fact, a harsh critic of the Bush administration, I was a loud opponent of the U.S. invasion of Iraq from the start, and I'm personally a Barack Obama supporter. How exactly does that add up to "right wing"?

Kohlmann also claimed in a seperate email to be a supporter of Palestinian statehood. His supposed opposition to the Bush administration, if true, would be no surprise since his mentor Richard Clarke has been overtly critical of Bush. Research revealed no evidence of Kohlmann ever having supported Palestinian rights or opposed the occupation of Iraq.

On 15 May 2008 a search was conducted of every English language article available on Lexis Nexis mentioning ‘Palestine’ and 'Kohlmann'. This returned 32 items. A comprehensive search was also conducted of Globalterroralert and the website of the NEFA Foundation for references to 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian'. This returned 69 webpages.

At no point in these documents did Kohlmann express any support for Palestinian self-determination or Palestinian rights of any kind. The closest he comes to doing so is commenting on the value of the Israel-Palestinian conflict to Al-Qaeda and the Algerian government, on MSNBC, and in his Georgetown thesis respectively. In addition a dossier on the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group simply makes reference to the second Intifada. All other mentions of Palestine and Palestinians refer to the origins of individuals or are quoted from groups and individuals Kohlmann has monitored online. The relevant extracts are reproduced below:

MSNBC, 27 July 2006

KOHLMANN: As Zawahiri says in this video, the issue right now is Palestine. Palestine. Palestine. It’s -- really, it’s propaganda issue. It’s a populist issue.

CARLSON: Right.

KOHLMANN: It’s pure populist dogma.

Evan Kohlmann, “The Legacy of the Arab-Afghans: A Case Study”, Georgetown University, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, 17 April 2001

Though the nationalist party had been the driving force behind the Algerian independence movement in 1962, over the years, it had grown extremely corrupt and was guilty of gross mismanagement. However, instead of addressing the real problems, the regime slyly redirected popular resentment stemming from unemployment and corruption in more “positive,” international directions, such as towards the Palestinian issue, African decolonization, and the American-led anti-communist war in Southeast Asia.

Dossier: Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) October 2007

As the second Intifada pitting Palestinians against Israelis heated up in the fall of 2000, the LIFG also began increasing its public support for extreme Palestinian Islamist groups dedicated to the eradication of a Jewish state. Only days after the renewed uprising began in the Palestinian territories, the LIFG issued a statement expressing its total solidarity with extremist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

A search was conducted of every English language article on Lexis Nexis mentioning ‘Iraq’ and ‘occupation’ and ‘Kohlmann’, which returned 48 items in total. Again Globalterroralert and the website of the NEFA Foundation were comprehensively searched, this time for references to ‘Iraq’ and ‘occupation’ (returning 21 webpages in total).

The websites contained no documents containing any criticism from Kohlmann of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In one document called ‘Introduction: The Sunni Insurgency in Iraq’, Kohlmann describes various groups involved in armed conflict with the U.S. All references to occupation are in the form of quotes including one section where the phrase 'American occupation' is used by Kohlmann in inverted commas:

Introduction: The Sunni Insurgency in Iraq, August 2007

The statement celebrated the “beautiful display” of “national unity” following the 1920 Iraqi nationalist revolution, and blamed the “American occupation” for the current internecine strife between “Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs, Kurds, Muslims, and Christians.”

That paragraph is lifted verbatim from an earlier report called ‘The State of the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq’, dated 29 December 2006.

There were two documents available on Globalterroralert refering to occupation outside of quotation marks. The first called ‘The Foreign “Martyrs” of Iraq: 2003-2004’ refered to a man calling his family to tell them he was going to fight the US occupation in Iraq. The second, titled, ‘Profiles of Saudi Arabian Islamic Militants Killed in Iraq: 2004-2005’, repeats that account verbatim and also refers to the occupation of Kabal.

The Lexis Nexis search revealed one article where Kohlmann is critical of the Bush administration’s lack of understanding of Iraq. It does suggest a more sober and realistic analysis than is usually presented by neo-conservatives, but nevertheless Kohlmann does not overly criticise the occupation and specifically rejects the possibility of a US withdrawal. An extract of the interview is below:

Do you think the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq?

I'm afraid not. If we withdraw from Iraq right now, there's no doubt what will happen. First there's going to be a war for control of Baghdad and then once Baghdad is ripped to the ground, the battle is going to spread across Iraq. It could potentially be like Rwanda. Right now, hundreds of people are being killed each month, which is awful and horrifying in itself. Imagine if that figure was 100 times bigger. Also, if we withdraw, a widespread war is going to be entirely our responsibility.

Legal testimony

Kohlmann has appeared frequently as an expert for the prosecution in cases against Muslims in the United States and Britain. He has also assisted the prosecution in the US Military Commissions – condemned by human rights groups. He bills $275 an hour for his services and reportedly signed more than $135,000 in Justice Department contracts in 2007. Many of these cases are based on charges of conspiracy or supporting a terrorist organisation, where the individual’s guilt is established by association. Several of the American cases involve the use of undercover agents to incite the defendants. In some cases there is no evidence of links to terrorism at all and the defendants have been charged purely in relation to materials in their position such as literature on weapons or explosives, or merely videos and written material downloaded from the internet. In testimony Kohlmann has sought where ever possible to identify individuals and groups with Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and has gained a reputation for scare tactics. He has even put together films depicting terrorism for this purpose. There is a separate page giving deatils of Kohlmann's Legal testimony. For the purposes of this page, below is a list of cases where Kohlmann is known to have testified.

USA v. Masoud Khan et al (Eastern District of Virginia, 2004)

USA v. Sabri Benkhala (Eastern District of Virginia, 2004)

USA v. Ali Timimi (Eastern District of Virginia, 2005)

International Prosecutors v. Abduladhim Maktouf (Supreme Court of Bosnia Herzegovina, 2005)

USA v. Uzair Paracha (Southern District of New York, 2005)

USA v. Ali Asad Chandia (Eastern District of Virginia, 2006)

USA v. Yassin Muhiddin Aref and Mohammed Mosharref Hossain (Northern District of New York, 2006)

R. v. Mohammed Ajmal Khan and Palvinder Singh (Snaresbrook Crown Court, 2006)

USA v. Rafiq Sabir (Southern District of New York, 2007)

USA v. Muntasser et al (District of Massachusetts, 2007)

USA v. Sabri Benkhala (Eastern District of Virginia, 2004)

R. v F (Woolwich Crown Court, 2007)

H.M.A. v. Mohammed Atif Siddique (Glasgow High Court, 2007)

R. v. Samina Malik (Old Bailey, 2007)

R. v. Hassan Mutegombwa (Old Bailey, 2007)

R. v. Younis Tsouli and Wasim Mughal (Woolwich Crown Court, 2007)

USA v. Hassan Abu-Jihaad (District of Conneticut, 2008)

USA v. Mohammed Zaki Amawi et al (Northern District of Ohio, 2008)

USA v. Salim Ahmed Hamdan (Military Commission, 2008)

Criticisms of Kohlmann’s methods and credentials

Irrelevant testimony and linking Defendants to Al-Qaeda

Like other 'terrorism experts' Kohlmann tends to demonise Islamists groups, and to link disparate groups and individuals into an encompassing narrative of international terrorism. His 'expertise' are therefore very useful to prosecutors who seek to demonstrate the malevolent intent of a defendant in the absence of convincing evidence of their preparation or planning of acts of terrorism. As Kohlmann himself explains: “There are a lot of people who know a lot about the world, but they don’t know what every terrorist group represents...I am able to bring this to life for the court.” What in particular Kohlmann tends to "brings to life" is connections linking defendants to Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden. This, in the political climate of the United States greatly increases the prosecution's chances of a conviction. As the defense attorney in the Timimi case explains: “If a jury in the US finds any connection between your client and Osama bin Laden, you’re going to get convicted.” Indeed the prosecution in that case stated in a motion that: “we expect that his testimony - as it was in the Benkhala trial - will be helpful in explaining to the trier of fact the background of and the relationships between the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Lashkar-e-Taiba.”. In the related case of USA v. Ali Asad Chandia Kohlmann took the same approach. According to trial notes taken by a supporter of Chandia, Kohlmann mentioned Al-Qaeda repeatedly during his testimony. When defence attorney Marvin Miller directed Kohlmann to a book by terrorism expert Jessica Stern called Terrorist in the Name of God, in which Stern referred to disaffection between Lashkar-e-Taiba and Osama bin Laden, Kohlmann contradicted that claim. He insisted instead that the Lashkar-e-Taiba literature claimed differently.

One of the most blatant examples of Kohlmann's modus operandi is the 2008 case of USA v. Hassan Abu-Jihaad, which concerned a former signalman in the US Navy accused of purchasing extremist material and leaking classified information including his Battle Group’s movements and its vulnerability to a terrorist attack. Kohlmann submitted an Expert Report (PDF) in the case. The 19 page report included a three page section entitled ‘Usama Bin Laden and the Rise of Al-Qaida in Afghanistan’. It mentioned Osama Bin Laden 27 times and Al-Qaeda 34 times. Kolmann even proposed to use a photograph of Osama Bin Laden during his testimony but after the Judge expressed concerns, the prosecution withdrew the request. He also proposed to show three videos during his testimony which included images of dismembered fighters and soldiers. The Judge allowed the violent videos to be shown so as to "provide circumstantial information that the jury could use to determine [the defendant's] intent". The use of film by the prosecution was also a feature of USA v. Mohammed Zaki Amawi et al (also a 2008 case) in which the prosecution created a multi-hour video montage for presentation to the jurors, which included suicide car bombings, destruction of vehicles by I.E.D.s, making and testing of suicide vests, sniper shootings of American military personnel, dead American soldiers, execution of civilians, and desecration of bodies. Although it is not clear whether Kohlmann was involved in the production of these videos, in the case against Salim Ahmed Hamdan ('Bin Laden's chauffeur') it is known that Kohlmann put together a film for the prosecution.

The Al Qaida Plan cost $20,000 to make. Its 90 minutes of video clips depict the history of al Qaeda from its formation in 1988 to the September 11th attacks. Kohlmann changed the name of the video from the Rise of al Qaeda to The Al Qaida Plan to draw a closer comparison to “The Nazi Plan,” a famous documentary film produced by the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials. The Los Angeles Times quoted the tribunal's chief prosecutor, Army Col. Lawrence Morris, as saying, "It is prejudicial, which is why we show it. I think people think prejudicial is somehow wrong."

The use of propaganda films is also a tactic used by fellow Investigative Project graduate Rita Katz during her testimony to the US House Committee on Homeland Security, possibly with Kohlmann narrating

In USA v. Mohammed Zaki Amawi, et al Kohlmann was finally barred from testifying on the basis that his proposed testimony was 'not relevant to the issues in this case'. Although the prosecution did not allege that any of the three defendants had any connection to any terrorist group, nevertheless they sought to have Kohlmann provide “general information regarding international terrorism.” The Judge commented that the "limited probative value of his testimony is outweighed very substantially by its very considerable potential for unfair prejudice to the defendants". In that case the prosecution created a multi-hour video montage for presentation to the jurors, which included suicide car bombings, destruction of vehicles by I.E.D.s, making and testing of suicide vests, sniper shootings of American military personnel, dead American soldiers, execution of civilians, and desecration of bodies. It is not clear whether Kohlmann was involved in the production of the video although in the case against Salim Ahmed Hamdan ('Bin Laden's chauffeur') he put together a 'documentary' for the prosecution.

Ignorance of Middle Eastern Poltics and Culture

Kohlmann’s focus on IT means that he has a detailed if superficial knowledge of individuals and groups professing to be Islamists on the internet, but a very limited knowledge and understanding of the political and historical context of these groups. He dismisses “social causes” and says he tries “to avoid learning about what the defendants may have done that’s irrelevant to [his] testimony”.

In United States v. Aref and Hossain, Kohlmann testified as an expert on Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, standing in for the prosecution’s preferred expert Rohan Gunaratna. He was cross examined on his knowledge of Bangladesh by defence attorney Kevin Luibrand. He knew neither the name of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh then or in 2003 nor the name of the leader of Jamaat-e-Islami then or in 2003. He admitted he had never written any papers on Jamaat-e-Islami, nor been interviewed about the group. He admitted he had never been to Bangladesh, and he could not name any political parties in Bangladesh. He was asked if he had heard of the Bangladeshi National Party – which led the political coalition joined by Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh at that time – and he said it sounded “vaguely familiar”. Nevertheless, Kohlmann was permitted to testify as an expert on political groups in Bangladesh.

According to the defence his testimony was “devastating”. Despite his ignorance, defence attorney Kevin Luibrand said he “had an ability to pronounce Middle Eastern names with a fluidity that made the jury believe he knew what he was talking about.”

In fact Kohlmann has very limited knowledge of Arabic and uses automatic translation software. In a clip on National Public Radio he is only able to translate the common Arabic phrase “Allahu Akbar”, (God is the Greatest). However he claims that, “from years of listening and watching video tapes and audio tapes and being with Arabic speakers, I can understand quite a bit aurally”. He has also stated that he has two Arabic speakers who work for him part time.

Despite the fact that Kohlmann has no expertise in Islamic culture beyond some minor undergraduate courses, in the Benkahla trial he was permitted to testify on modern Afghani politics. The trial Judge stated, "clearly, he's written enough and studied enough on this, and I'm going to accept him as an expert". He also testified as an expert on “the concept of a global caliphate, and terms such as jihad, mujahideen, kaiir, and fatwa”.

Ironically Kohlmann himself wrote in his article for Foreign Affairs that, “Deciphering these Web sites will require not just Internet savvy but also the ability to read Arabic and understand the jihadists' cultural backgrounds -- skills most U.S. counterterrorism agents currently lack.”

Internet sources and hearsay evidence

Kohlmann’s research mostly involves monitoring and recording postings on Islamist websites which he says can yield important intelligence on the plans and activities of terrorists. He explained to the Washington Post:

“As noxious as it is to watch these folks spread their hateful message, there is a treasure-trove of information that can be mined from terrorist communiques and videos--and even casual online discussions among jihadi footsoldiers.”

Kohlmann uses software to archive material from websites and store it on a database. This information is then supplemented by information from other sources such as government reports and court cases when he is asked to draft reports.

Under cross examination by Geoffrey Robertson QC Kohlmann described his approach as follows:

“[The] best way to describe what I do is that I am a micro-historian; that I have taken a very tiny piece of modern history and I have dissected it using sources that are usually unavailable to academics, and I have attempted to create a narrative and an in-depth explanation of these activities, again, generally from the perspective of the Mujahadin themselves.”

Kohlmann’s approach has been criticised by some fellow experts. Jessica Stern has been quoted as saying that experts like Kohlmann and Rita Katz, “are reading what the terrorists say about themselves, and there’s lots of disinformation there”. In an interview for an article on Kohlmann and other expert trial witnesses, Bruce Hoffman said he would not testify at a terrorism trial, saying, “I have to bring added value, I don’t want to be a mouthpiece or have anyone put added words into my mouth or base anything on hearsay.”

In British and American law, hearsay evidence is testimony that consists of what the witness has heard others say. As a general rule it is excluded on the basis that the reported statement would not be made under oath and the person making would most likely not be available for cross-examination. However, herasay evidence is admissible under some circumstances if permitted by the Judge. Defence lawyers have tried to exclude Kohlmann’s testimony on the basis that is it reliant on hearsay evidence. This has been rejected in a number of cases. For example, in 'United States v. Uzair Paracha' the Judge described Kohlmann’s methodology as being “similar to that employed by experts that have been permitted to testify in other federal courts involving terrorist organizations”. The case of United States v. Damrah (United States Court of Appeal Sixth Circuit, 2005) has been cited as a precedent along with United States v. Hammoud (PDF)(United States Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit, 2004).

In those cases fellow terror expert Matthew Levitt was permitted as an expert witness. In United States v. Damrah the Judge commented that “Given the secretive nature of terrorists, the Court can think of few other materials that experts in the field of terrorism would rely upon”. The Judge described Levitt’s methods as “the gold standard in the field of international terrorism”.

Peer Review

One significant question that arises as to whether Kohlmann can properly be described as an expert is whether his work is properly peer reviewed. In US law there is an established test for whether a witness can be considered an expert which includes whether or not his or her theories have been subjected to peer review and publication.

Kohlmann has insisted that his work is peer reviewed. Under cross examination by Geoffrey Robertson QC Kohlmann claimed that “every paper that I write is extensively peer reviewed by academics and by others around the world”. And in United States v. Paracha Kohlmann testified that his “written publications are submitted for comment and critique by academics and peers in his field before publication”.

The prosecution in United States v. Ali Asad Chandia stated that Kohlmann’s research “is subject to rigorous peer review”, and that his “regular practice is to circulate his draft publications for critique to a wide range of individuals, including other established experts on terrorism, academics, journalists, and officials in U.S. Government agencies.”

In fact it has never been shown that Kohlmann has ever published anything that has been formally peer reviewed. The closest Kohlmann has come to producing an academic study is a Working Paper he produced for the Institute for International Studies. The scholarly sounding Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International for example, where Kohlmann has authored several articles, states in its writers guidelines that it “is not a technical or scholarly journal” and that, “footnotes should be avoided when possible”, and The Annals of the The American Academy of Political and Social Science, where Kohlmann authored an article in June 2008, has confirmed that it has no peer review process beyond review of issue proposals by the Editorial Advisory Board. Similarly Foreign Affairs, where Kohlmann has had an article published, say they “try to avoid using footnotes in print” and although well respected, it is arguably a journalistic rather than academic publication.

The first challenge against Kohlmann in this regard appears to have been in United States v. Ali Timimi (Eastern District of Virginia, 2005). For that case Kohlmann submitted undergraduate essays as evidence of his expertise.

The defence objected that the prosecution had provided no evidence that Kohlmann’s research had been “tested, subject to any peer review, whether there are known error rates applicable to his theory or technique, nor whether his technique enjoys general acceptance within any scientific community”. The prosecution’s response was to argue that such tests were “irrelevant to Mr. Kohlmann's field of expertise”. The Judge apparently agreed because Kohlmann was allowed to testify and Timimi was subsequently convicted.

In United States v. Paracha, the Court again considered the question of whether Kohlmann’s work could properly be considered to be peer reviewed. The Judge in that case said:

“Kohlmann’s opinions and conclusions are subjected to various forms of peer review and that the opinions he proposes to offer here regarding al Qaeda’s origins, leaders and certain tradecraft are generally accepted within the relevant community…Whatever the pitfalls of this vetting process, and obviously it is not the same peer review as in a formal academic setting, it is a sufficiently reliable methodology…and the weight to be giving to that testimony is for the jury to determine”.

In United States v. Ali Asad Chandia (Eastern District of Virginia, 2006), the defence attorney pointed out that Kohlmann had no Masters or PhD and that he had never been published in a peer review publication by a college or university. The prosecution implicitly conceded that Kohlmann was not strictly peer reviewed, but argued that “the type of peer review conducted by Mr. Kohlmann specifically has been endorsed by the Fourth Circuit”. Here the prosecution was referring to the testimony of Matthew Levitt in the Hammoud case.

In subsequent cases the Courts have referred to these previous decisions as evidence in itself that Kohlmann is an expert. When Benkahla appealed to the US Court of Appeal challenging, amongst other things, Kohlmann’s expertise, the Court rejected the appeal, referring to the fact that Kohlmann had “qualified as an expert in the same subjects six different times in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, and in the United Kingdom.” In the recent case of United States v. Hassan Abu-Jihaad (District of Conneticut, 2008), the Judge stated that:

“Mr. Kohlmann has testified as an expert in seven trials held in the United States and in several cases before foreign courts. In this Circuit, two judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have expressly concluded that Mr. Kohlmann is qualified to provide expert testimony on terrorism similar to that which he intends to provide in this case.” The Court also found that “Kohlmann’s work receives a considerable amount of peer review from academic scholars and others”.

Most recently in United States v. Amawi et al, Kohlmann stated that he enjoyed “a unique form of peer revive which is because of [the] fact that my materials are published on the Internet sometimes they are also reviewed by individuals who are members of terrorist organisations”.

Exaggeration of his own credentials under oath

In R. v. F (Woolwich Crown Court, 2007) Kohlmann was cross examined on his expert credentials by Geoffrey Robertson QC. He implied that his book was published by Oxford University Press, whereas in fact it was published by Berg Publishers:

Robertson: Your book is a book described as published by Berg Publishers?

Kohlmann: It is Oxford University Press, I believe.

Robertson: That is a false statement, Mr Kohlmann; is it not? Oxford University Press? It was published by Berg?

Kohlmann: Which is an imprint of Oxford University Press.

Robertson: No, it is an imprint of Oxford International Publishers, which is not Oxford University Press?

Later Kohlmann referred to his honours thesis as being "over a hundred pages long", although the (double spaced) version posted on his website is only 88 pages.

In United States v. Amawi et al, when Kohlmann was questioned over his language skills and the reliability of his translators he replied that he does not necessarily rely on what they say as the final word and added that he works with Arabic speaking academics as well. Specifically he named Dr. Mohammed Hafez of the University of Kansas City, who he referred to as a “close colleague”

Defence attorneys subsequently showed Dr. Mohammed Hafez a copy of Kohlmann’s testimony and Hafez signed a sworn affidavit stating that he is not a “close colleague” of Kohlmann’s and that in fact they had merely exchanged emails and spoken two or three times at conferences. He said he had never peer reviewed Kohlmann’s work.

Glorifying Terrorism?

Kohlmann has testified against several defendants on the basis of their possession of 'terrorist' material from the internet. In one such case, H.M.A. v. Mohammed Atif Siddique, it was pointed out by the defence that Kohlmann himself could be charged with the same offences as the defendant. Mohammed Siddique was convicted for possessing terrorist propaganda and setting up a website containing material on “preparing for jihad” Kohlmann filed an 18-page report on behalf of Crown Prosecutors, in which he concluded that Siddique’s collection constituted “a formidable archive of authentic Al-Qaida recruitment and technical material that is designed and likely to be used for purposes relating to the commission, perpetration, or instigation of an act of terrorism—most specifically, a suicide or 'martyrdom' operation.” Kohlmann described to the jury material found on Siddique’s computer which included an al-Qaeda recruiting video encouraging Muslims to go to Iraq and become suicide. He also showed the jury footage of an American man Paul Johnson being beheaded, and footage of British hostage Ken Bigley before he was beheaded. That footage was from Kohlmann’s website not on Siddique’s laptop. Kohlmann said he showed the footage to show the brutality of al-Qaeda. Donald Findlay QC, commented that “Instead of being brought from the US to be put in the witness box, [Kohlmann] should have been put in the dock.” In his closing remarks in the trial, Findlay said that material on Kohlmann’s website - such as the beheading of a US hostage - was the “most horrific ever shown to a jury”.

Affiliations

Organisations

• The SITE Institute
• Counterterrorism Blog
• Investigative Project on Terrorism
• NEFA Foundation

Friends and Associates

• Josh Devon
• Steven Emerson
• Matthew Epstein 'the source of infinite patience, intelligence, and sound advice'
• John Eubanks
• Mamoun Fandy
• Rita Katz
• Tamar Tesler 'my long-time travelling colleague and confidant'
• Lorenzo Vidino 'a human encyclopedia on Al-Qaida in Europe'

Publications

Books

• Evan Kohlmann, Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network, (Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2004) ISBN 978-1859738023.

The Guardian described Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe as “terribly written but superbly researched”. It received praise from Richard Clarke, an old ally of Kholmann’s mentor Steve Emerson. Clarke also used it as a textbook at Harvard University.

Articles

• Evan F. Kohlmann, Real Online Terrorist Threat’, Foreign Affairs, September 2006 - October 2006 Vol. 85 No. 5, p.115

• Evan F. Kohlmann, The role of Islamic charities in international terrorist recruitement and financing (PDF), Danish Institute for International Studies Working Paper 2006:7, January 2006

• Evan Kohlmann, ‘Emboldening al Qaeda’, National Review Online, 18 June 2004

• Evan Kohlmann, ‘Breeding Ground: A home for al Qaeda in Iraq’, National Review Online, 14 May 2004

• Lorenzo Vidino and Evan Kohlmann, ‘Al Qaeda’s Death Train? The Culprits in Madrid’, National Review Online, 15 March 2004

• Evan Kohlmann, ‘A Saudi Home’, National Review Online, 9 February 2004

• Evan Kohlmann, ‘From Russia, No Love for Victims of Terror’, National Review Online, 29 October 2002

• Josh Devon and Evan Kohlmann, ‘Terrorist State’, National Review Online, 26 June 2002

• Evan Kohlmann, ‘A Web of Terror’, The Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 2000

• Evan Kohlmann, ‘An Interview With Congressman Matt Salmon’, The Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International Winter 1999

• Rita Katz & Evan Kohlmann, ‘Pandering to Terrorists’, The Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International, Winter 1999, Vol. 6, No. 2

• John Eubanks and Evan Kohlmann, ‘Trends in Anti-American Terrorism’, The Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International, Winter 1999

Related Articles

• Petra Bartosiewicz, Experts in Terror The Nation, 4 February 2008
• George Smith, Evan Kohlmann does the rounds, The Register, 2 October 2007
• Benjamin Wallace-Wells, 'PRIVATE JIHAD: How Rita Katz got into the spying business', The New Yorker, 29 May 2006
• Steve Coll and Susan B. Glasser, Terrorists Turn to the Web as Base of Operations, Washington Post, August 7, 2005
• Evan Kohlmann, Operation Niche: The Conviction of Mohammed Atif Siddique, Counter Terrorism Blog, September 18, 2007