See Something, Say Nothing

by Philip Haney

  In February 2005, Sultan spoke at the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), the mosque attended by Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.3

  I was connected to the Sultan case because he was part of the Hamas Network investigation I had started in late 2006.

  Sultan left the United States in October 2008 and has never returned. He made numerous media appearances during the Arab Spring but was arrested in Egypt in 2013, along with his son Mohamed Soltan, where he remains imprisoned under a death sentence.

  Mohamed Soltan was released from prison in Egypt after a four-hundred-day hunger strike and returned to the United States on May 30, 2015.4 If his father, Salah Sultan, somehow did try to return to America, his close association with Hamas and known terrorists makes him an inadmissible alien under INS code 237(4)(B), in accordance with 212(a)(3)(B), which is inadmissibility due to “terrorist activities.”5

  Two years after the Hamas report was finished, my continuing efforts to target individuals and organizations tied to the network led to another invitation. On January 29, 2009, Brooke McCoy, a colleague and friend of mine in the Operational Analysis Branch, Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination (OIOC), e-mailed my port director, asking that he release me to work for an extended time on a “new joint FBI/ICE/JTTF/FinCEN [Financial Crimes Enforcement Network] project” initiated by my research on Hamas:

  Initial project discussions indicate that we will be targeting individuals associated with Hamas through PNR [passenger name record] for outbound examinations for currency and potentially other extremist material.

  Upon notification by our group, FBI will coordinate the physical examinations of these individuals. Potentially, this could expand to include Phil’s research on Tablighi Jamaat, and could open additional avenues within Intel for someone with his insight, research, and writing skills.

  Please let us know if he is available for this detail. I’m very pleased that he has the opportunity to be a part of something initiated by his diligence and creative thought.

  As happened so many times during my career in CBP, no reply was ever given regarding this important temporary-duty assignment opportunity with the Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination.

  The memo also indicates I was already working on the Tablighi Jamaat case in January 2009, which eventually evolved into the initiative that was shut down by the NTC in June 2012 and came to national attention following the San Bernardino shootings December 2, 2015.

  Who can say what law enforcement actions may have been taken to help protect the country if we had all been allowed to work together on a case such as this?

  Less than a month after the invitation, February 24, 2009, I received a copy of a commendation letter from FBI Special Agent in Charge Gregory Jones to Port Director Stephen Kremer:

  It is with great appreciation that I write this letter to thank your agency, specifically Officer Philip Haney for his assistance in support of the joint CBP/FBI IOIL program.

  The success of this program … relies significantly on the conscientious efforts of dedicated CBP Officers. Through 2007 and 2008 Officer Haney consistently conducted thorough and insightful interviews, and provided detailed IOIL information, upon which the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force places great value.

  In this new age of information sharing, Officer Haney’s efforts, professionalism and dedication to this program reflect great credit upon himself and Customs and Border Protection.

  On March 10, 2009, I met with Supervisor Harer to review the status of seven active cases related either to the Hamas network or the Tablighi Jamaat Initiative. In the six months since I joined the ATU team to that day, there had been 914 inquiries or requests for information from law-enforcement colleagues around the country.

  I also asked Harer to check into the status of the OIOC TDY opportunity, but we were never given the courtesy of a response.

  PROTECTING MUSLIMS

  On June 4, 2009, we arrived at what I considered a significant turning point in history, when President Obama addressed the entire Muslim world in his speech “A New Beginning,” in Cairo, Egypt, at Al-Azhar University, regarded as the center of the Sunni Islamic world.

  With specially invited Muslim Brotherhood leaders seated at the front of the audience, the speech made it clear to those of us in the counterterrorism community that a civil rights–based counterterrorism policy, known as Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), had completely overtaken the initial post-9/11 law enforcement–based counterterrorism policy.

  To reinforce the point, attorney general Eric Holder released a statement timed to coincide with President Obama’s speech in Cairo:

  The President’s pledge for a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community takes root here in the Justice Department, where we are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans. A top priority of this Justice Department is a return to robust civil rights enforcement and outreach in defending religious freedoms and other fundamental rights of all of our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the housing market, in our schools and in the voting booth.

  There are those who will continue to want to divide by fear – to pit our national security against our civil liberties – but that is a false choice. We have a solemn responsibility to protect our people while we also protect our principles.6

  The president’s speech came just six months after the Dallas jury in the Holy Land Foundation trial had returned 108 guilty verdicts against five individuals for material support of terrorism.

  As I considered the intent of President Obama’s speech to the Islamic world, combined with the timing of Holder’s announcement that the DOJ would now pursue a policy of “robust civil rights enforcement and outreach,” I realized that the DOJ would probably not proceed to a “phase two” of the Holy Land Foundation case and pursue the US-based groups in the Hamas network on which I had been reporting.

  Meanwhile, on July 19, 2009, I wrote a memo to Harer, alerting him to a disturbing trend of Muslim passengers creating a scene – cussing, screaming, and exhibiting other disruptive behavior – after they were referred either to the baggage inspection or secondary inspection area for questioning.

  My colleagues in other ports filed graphic, verbatim incident reports that described how, right in front of everyone, these well-known Muslim passengers would shout, for example, “I’m a US citizen. You don’t have the f***ing right to do this, to treat me like this! I’m going to call my senator!”

  In the memo to Harer, I observed:

  I have a feeling we’re being set up, i.e., that incidents like these are deliberate, and will be used in an attempt to deflect attention from people who are affiliated with known Muslim Brotherhood front groups, etc.

  These passengers are deliberately provoking CBP officers so that they can build a case of harassment and discrimination against the agency.

  They’re setting this up like a Sunday potluck; eventually, they will bring all of their complaints to the table, and then someone like CAIR will file a macro suit.

  I’ll keep you informed of any other incidents I find.

  A few months later, on October 27, 2009, a lawsuit brought by six Muslim clerics – the “flying imams” – who claimed religious discrimination for being removed from a flight was settled out of court for an unknown amount. A CAIR-affiliated lawyer represented the imams, who were removed before takeoff from a November 20, 2006, US Airways Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight after their behavior alarmed passengers and crew.

  The imams refused to sit in their assigned seats and moved out in pairs to occupy front, middle, and rear exit seats. They were observed praying loudly in Arabic, ordered seat-belt extenders they didn’t need, criticized the Iraq War and President Bush, and talked about al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The lawsuit was filed against US Airways, the airport authority, and even the passengers who reported the suspicious activity. Congress later passed a law to protect citizens who report suspicious behavi
or or activity.

  A few months before the “flying imams” settlement, July 24, 2009, seven members of Congress requested that Attorney General Holder meet with the leaders of at least nine major US Muslim groups to discuss a “decline in relations” between Muslims and the Justice Department. Virtually every one of the nine groups mentioned in the letter are known Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Worse, at least two of them had just been named as unindicted coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, CAIR and ISNA.

  The Congress members wrote:

  We are writing to request that you host a meeting with leaders of the American Muslim community to discuss the decline in relations between the American Muslim community and the Department of Justice, as well as ways to repair it.

  These concerns raise legitimate questions about due process, justice, and equal treatment under the law. We hope that you will meet with American Muslim leaders to ensure that core American values are respected for all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, or faith. For your convenience, we have attached a contact list of American Muslim leaders.

  Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

  The letter was signed by Democratic Reps. Lois Capps, Mike Honda, and Loretta Sanchez of California; Adam Schiff, Mary Jo Kilroy, and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio; and James Moran of Virginia.7

  The Islamic groups named in the letter also included the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), which adheres to a similar ideology as Jamaat-i-Islami, a Pakistani organization that calls for Islamic revolution and the creation of an Islamist state in Pakistan. Also listed was the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which has argued that Hezbollah should not be designated as a terrorist organization, and the nationwide Muslim Brotherhood–founded university campus organization, the Muslim Students Association (MSA).8

  It would have been prudent for these seven members of Congress to do some basic vetting before they signed a letter on behalf of American Muslim groups with proven ties to terrorist organizations.

  On the very same day, July 24, 2009, we also learned that despite strenuous objections from personnel within the intelligence and law enforcement communities, the FBI formally designated ISNA as its official point of contact with the American Muslim community.9

  The FBI already had presented intelligence at the Holy Land Foundation trial showing that ISNA conferences “provided opportunities for the extreme fundamentalist Muslims to meet with their supporters.”

  “The annual conferences are used for both religious and political purposes,” the FBI said. “The political purpose is to further the Islamic Revolution, which includes the providing of anti-U.S. and Israel publications, and publications that support the war effort of Iran in the Iran–Iraq war.”10

  NO MORE “WAR ON TERRORISM”

  Another policy tsunami hit August 6, 2009, when we were informed the White House had insisted on a “new way of seeing” the nation’s biggest threat, declaring that the United States was no longer in a “war on terrorism” and was not fighting “jihadists.”

  John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism and deputy national security adviser, explained that President Obama “does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism.’”

  “We are at war with al-Qaeda,” he said. “We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry out al-Qaeda’s murderous agenda.”

  By now, I was so concerned about the emerging threat and the Obama administration’s tightening restrictions on the ability of law enforcement officers to do our job that I made a second appointment with a member of Congress.

  This time, I met with Thomas Price, my representative from Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District.

  Speaking as a private citizen, with my wife sitting beside me, I met with Price in his office on the afternoon of September 1, 2009. I shared the following prepared remarks with him:

  This is an extraordinary time in American history – nothing quite like it has come before. As a 35-year analyst of events in the Middle East, I am convinced that the U.S. and her allies face a hazardous global crisis. This crisis has arrived in the form of terrorism, and in a concurrent rise in radical Islam.

  The road we face is fraught with potential dangers. It is imperative that we correctly understand the nature of this world-wide conflict – any major mistake in judgment could be catastrophic.

  I believe that America’s intelligence agencies must make full and creative use of every human resource available. I also believe that I have something valuable to offer in this new national mandate.

  To borrow from Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar (Act 4, Scene 3) –

  The enemy increases every day;

  We, at the height, are ready to decline.

  There is a tide in the affairs of men,

  Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

  Omitted, all the voyage of their life

  Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

  On such a full sea are we now afloat;

  And we must take the current when it serves,

  Or lose our ventures.

  I believe that we are now at the turning of that tide. I would like to help America continue her “voyage of life.”

  I’m grateful to Representative Price for his cordial reception that day and for listening to what I had to say.

  QURANIC PRISM

  By late September 2009 at my home Port of Atlanta, I had served on the ATU team for a full year, with Robert Harer as my direct supervisor the entire time.

  On September 26, 2009, I opened the first case at the Port of Atlanta that linked the movement of cargo to possible terrorism. My motto in ATU was, “Boxes don’t move without people.”

  The case focused on the importation of school textbooks titled Quranic Prism: Subject Index of the Holy Quran.11 In a status memo to management summarizing the case, I wrote:

  On page 1221 of the most recent edition (2007) of the Quranic Prism, the Prologue states that “In the current critical times of Islam-bashing, the present publication will go a long way in helping to remove the mischievous myths, naïve misunderstandings about Islam and mistrust between Muslims and the West. This ‘PRISM’ is designed to benefit the readers not well versed with Arabic and the Muslim community living under overwhelming Western influence, especially the younger generations lured by the spell of Secular Westernization.”

  In light of these facts, i.e. that [1] the Quranic Prism would like to “remove the mischievous myths, naïve misunderstandings about Islam and mistrust between Muslims and the West,” and [2] that it has been openly endorsed by the ICNA, ISNA and Al-Azhar University (i.e., organizations that usually go out of their way to avoid being openly associated with jihad), it is “surprising” to find that the Quranic Prism is so explicitly pro-jihadist in content.

  The first indication of this may be found on pages 99–100 of the Quranic Prism, which provide a summary of the Fundamentals of Faith – Foundations of Islam. These eight “Fundamentals” (better known as the “Pillars of Islam”) specifically include jihad, also known as “Holy War.”

  The Quranic Prism’s open declaration that jihad is one of the main “Pillars of Islam” is also surprising, because most US-based Islamic organizations will never publicly admit that jihad (“holy war”) is a central part of orthodox Islam.

  Another example of the pro-jihad teachings in the Quranic Prism may be found on page 660, under the heading “Hypocrites Who Stir Up Sedition Shall Be Seized and Slain”: “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found, and slain with a (fierce) slaughter. That was the way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old; you will not find any change in Allah’s practice” (Quran 33.61–62).

  In fact, a total of 289 verses (found in 47 of the 114 chapters in the Qur’an) are cited a total 324 times in pages 642–669 of the Quranic Prism. In addition, 14 of the Quran’s 16 major chapters on jihad that are cited in the Quranic Prism are also included in the Quranic Con
cept of War, a well-known book on orthodox, historical jihad-based military strategy and tactics that was written in 1986 by the Pakistani author S. K. Malik.

  I concluded the memo:

  Much more could be said about the complex nature of this case, but this memo is really meant to be a basic overview of the case for those who may have an interest in pursuing it further.

  One thing I am sure of – we will never find a more explicit example of materials that can be used to radicalize people, either child or adult, new believers in Islam or old, than the teachings that are found in the Quranic Prism.

  I also believe that this case warrants further involvement with colleagues in other agencies, especially in light of the apparent increase in radicalized Muslims who live right here in the USA.

  On October 6, 2009, I notified NTC in writing about the case, and our JTTF liaison informed me that details of the investigation would be forwarded to the appropriate colleagues in Texas for follow-up.

  By October 24, I had spent 116 hours on the case, linking numerous individuals and organizations with known terrorist ties to the network of schools and businesses that were importing Quranic Prism into American schools.

  But that very day, October 24, 2009, everything came to a screeching halt.

  One of the first casualties was the Quranic Prism case, which I never worked on again.

  “A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY”

  To go back just slightly, on October 15, 2009, I had a meeting with Port Director Kremer. At the time, my perception of the meeting was that I would be giving him a status report on the new Quranic Prism case, as well an update on the seven active cases that I had reviewed with Supervisor Harer on March 10, 2009. Since there had been several hundred more law enforcement actions attributed to these cases since March, I was looking forward to the meeting, which was scheduled for 9 a.m.