See Something, Say Nothing

by Philip Haney

  I said almost, because I was still the one in the middle of the case.

  The best way to put it was that the situation had been disarmed.

  Yes, the questioning was tough, and we still weren’t finished by the end of the second day, but the mood was entirely different than it was the day before.

  The third day, May 29, 2015, started off with some drama, and it was all my fault.

  At some point early that morning, I was struck by some of the questions the special agents had been asking about people I had spoken with on the phone or corresponded with via e-mail.

  All of a sudden, I realized that many of these phone calls and e-mails were from months, if not years, before the Boston Marathon attack.

  “Why are they asking me about phone calls and e-mails from way before the bombing?” I asked myself out loud.

  I called Officer Francis and said I thought I had found a fatal flaw in the entire procedure. We talked it over just a few minutes before the meeting was to start; then he went in and notified the special agents about my concerns and asked for a brief delay.

  After that, we met with the union president to discuss my premise, but in the end, he just said, “The investigators can do anything they want to do.”

  I didn’t have a lawyer to consult with, but since lawyers are not allowed to participate in administrative interviews, it wasn’t an issue.

  Meanwhile, the special agents were waiting for us, and after about an hour’s delay, we got started again.

  Finally, by mid-afternoon, all the questions had been asked, and Officer Francis and I were allowed to review a printout of the affidavit. After we had made a few minor changes and signed the approved final draft, we were suddenly finished.

  I stood and shook hands one last time with Special Agents Shaw and Murphy, looked them both straight in their eyes, and said goodbye.

  By the way, near the end of the third day, I found out that one of the possible criminal charges or administrative actions in the CBP and DOJ investigations was based on an alleged violation of the Saudi national Alharbi’s privacy rights, which includes “a person’s rights to be free from intrusion into aspects of their life, such as their living space, belongings, and physical body, including a person’s right to be free from unreasonable searches by the police or government agents.”2

  Once again, Alharbi remains a foreign national, not an American citizen.

  GREAT CALM

  It wasn’t until the moment it was finally over and we were walking out of the meeting for the last time that I began to realize more fully what had actually happened in the last three days.

  One of the first things I realized is that the government is fully capable of moving at high speed if it wishes. Less than two months after the bombing, I was already under investigation.

  At least the first month of that time would have been spent initiating the case, securing the contractors, developing the questions for the first affidavit, and arranging the first appointment to interview me in Atlanta.

  I also realized that at some point after July 31, 2013 – the first Internal Affairs interview and affidavit in Atlanta – CBP became so convinced they had found probable cause to indict me on criminal charges that they sent the case over to the DOJ.

  I first heard about the DOJ’s involvement in the case on May 21, 2014. During the following year, the DOJ convened a grand jury, subpoenaed members of Congress, and brought at least two lawyers into the case.

  But in the end, as I finally was told on May 27, 2014, the DOJ had no choice but to drop the case; the grand jury could find no probable cause.

  At the same moment, I also realized that since I was only two months from retirement, it was very unlikely the case would wind its way up through the chain of command or that any subsequent adverse action would be taken.

  On May 29, 2014, at approximately 3:30 p.m., it was all over, except for the paperwork.

  I also realized that since the DOJ had dropped the charges, I could also start calling my contacts in Congress.

  HALLELUJAH

  It was as if choruses of hallelujah were echoing across Washington and the country when my friends and colleagues started hearing the news.

  Everyone breathed a big sigh of joyful relief. Unconsciously, they were also showing me how concerned they had been all along. Now that it was really over, they could express more freely how they felt.

  In a nutshell, a lot of my friends had been worried about me, but when DOJ dropped the criminal charges, and the administrative ordeal was finally over – all within those three days in May – they realized that not only was I telling the truth the whole time, but that in this case, at least, the truth had prevailed.

  The truth really did set me free.

  During the entire ten-year ordeal, I didn’t exaggerate, take away or add anything to the facts of the case, but simply told the story exactly as it happened.

  Ultimately, it elevated my credibility within the agency, with my non–law enforcement colleagues, and on Capitol Hill.

  Meanwhile, even though I finally had some clarity, my life didn’t slow down.

  Congress still considered me to be a whistle-blower. On June 2, 2015, I came to Washington for about the fortieth time since early 2012 and met with the chief counsels for Sens. Ted Cruz and Charles Grassley, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA.

  The main theme of the conversation was possible abuse or violations of due process, specifically regarding accessing my phone records and e-mails well before the date of the Boston bombing. We also discussed whether I should file a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel and whether I might have a basis to reach out to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, which handle matters dealing with the potentially inappropriate conduct of inspectors general and their offices.

  At the moment, these questions remain unresolved, but they will hopefully be addressed in the days to come. Whatever does finally happen, it won’t be just for my benefit but also for others who may find themselves in a similar situation.

  In one last parting shot, on June 8, 2015, the CBP Personnel Security Division, Office of Internal Affairs, administratively suspended my secret clearance.

  The form I signed included the following statements:

  Until further advised by this office, Mr. Haney cannot have access to any classified information or systems.

  The suspension of the security clearance will remain in effect until further notice from this office.

  This suspension extends to any temporary assignment, special project, task force, training course, etc., for which clearance is required and/or certification of the employee’s clearance to outside agencies/ facilities, etc.

  This suspension does not constitute an adverse action.

  At least it wasn’t an “adverse action.” Otherwise, I might have really been upset!

  Four days later, on June 12, 2015, virtually everyone in CBP received an e-mail notification that we had been the victims of a malicious cyber intrusion carried out against the US government, which resulted in the theft of our background investigation records – including the very records they used to get my now-suspended secret clearance.

  We also learned that our Social Security numbers, dates of birth, residencies, educational and employment histories, personal foreign travel histories, immediate families, business and personal acquaintances details, and other information used to conduct and adjudicate our background clearances were also obtained in the breach.

  Now, thanks to the American taxpayer, we all have the option of free credit and identity monitoring services for an indeterminate time.

  What agency was responsible for maintaining the security of our personal information?

  The Department of Homeland Security’s own Office of Personnel Management.

  RETIREMENT

  During the entire month of July, I took the opportunity to say good-bye in person to as many of my friends and colleagues at the port as I could.

&nbs
p; For those who read this that are still in active duty, thank you for your service, and for your support and friendship during the ten most difficult, but most rewarding, years of my life.

  You are part of this remarkable story, which is now becoming part of the history of our agency and of our great country.

  On July 31, 2015, I officially retired from Customs and Border Protection. On the same day, I drove up to Washington to start my new postretirement as a consultant in national security and counterterrorism. (Some of those business meetings I mentioned earlier were very productive.)

  On August 12, 2015, Judicial Watch released a cache of FOIA documents, including the result of a Defense Intelligence Agency report on the Benghazi attack.

  The report was originally submitted in August 2012, just one month before the attack on our diplomatic compound occurred.

  Among the damning revelations in the DIA report, we learned that the administration was secretly transporting weapons from Benghazi to Syria in small ships that landed at several minor ports along the coast of Syria. We also learned that these weapons were being supplied to groups in Syria who were fighting Bashar al-Assad, including Salafist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda of Iraq, which were the major driving force of the opposition.

  Finally, we learned that “if the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria.”3

  In simple terms, the administration was arming Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafi jihadist groups in Syria and encouraging them to hold eastern Syria as a buffer against any further westward expansion by Shia forces from Iraq and Iran.

  All this while publicly maintaining that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video and that the Muslim Brotherhood was an “umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” which has “pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt … In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”4

  As I sat at my computer, reading the DIA report, it hit me harder than ever before: as a CBP officer, I targeted the Muslim Brotherhood for nearly ten years, trying to warn DHS management and members of Congress that it was a dangerous movement, while the administration was supporting the Brotherhood at home and arming them in the Middle East.

  That, my friends, is why I became a whistle-blower.

  My oath would not allow me to stay silent.

  Then came the shootings in San Bernardino on December 2, 2015.

  Within hours, details of the shooters’ identities started coming out. A little later, the names of the mosques that Syed Farook had attended also became public.

  As I followed the case, I saw the name Darul Uloom al-Islamiya San Bernardino appear in a local news story.

  I sat straight up in my chair and yelled at the computer screen, “That’s my case!”

  It was the Tablighi Jamaat Initiative and the subsequent case with the sixty-seven records that were deleted in September 2012.

  I immediately texted one of my colleagues and told him that Tashfeen Malik was a boy’s name and that it probably originated in the southern Arabian Peninsula. As we soon found out, Tashfeen was born in Pakistan but grew up in Saudi Arabia.

  The Darul Uloom mosque that Syed Farook attended was part of the same network of mosques and schools on which the IIE case had focused.

  Where would we be today if these two cases, and others like them, had been allowed to continue?

  The search for an honest response to that question, and the willingness to be a part of the solution, is what has brought me to this moment.

  FINAL THOUGHTS

  As I consistently maintained throughout my entire career with CBP, terrorist networks are always made up of individuals and their affiliated organizations.

  As specialists such as I tracked the activities of these individuals and their affiliated organizations, we added them to our database and then made law enforcement–based decisions derived from the articulable facts we had gathered.

  That is following the trail, also known as connecting the dots, and that is successful counterterrorism. It was also the original founding purpose of DHS, and it remains the reason why I take my oath to protect our country so seriously.

  As a DHS officer, I solemnly swore, “so help me God,” that I would “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

  I’m retired, but my oath is still on active duty. I remain obligated to go wherever my oath will require. For that reason, and for the sake of my family and friends, I’m in this until the end.

  I do have hope. After all, we’re Americans; we have faced dark periods and difficulties many times before.

  This is still a fixable problem. We have the capability, the desire and the tools to do it, if only we are allowed to.

  My call to our political leaders is this: Take the handcuffs off of law enforcement and military, and let us do our job.

  Since my retirement, many of my colleagues who are still on active duty have cheered me on, saying, “Thank God, someone is finally standing up for us!”

  It is for them – along with my family and friends – that I must continue.

  Finally, I must continue so that I might honor the sacrifice of our Founding Fathers and their intent to form a government built on principles that would best ensure the “Safety and Happiness” of the people:

  Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.5

  In venatus veritas

  (In relentless pursuit of the truth)

  APPENDIX

  Department of Homeland Security founding member certificate signed by the first secretary, Tom Ridge.

  Employment offer to Philip Haney for conversion from agricultural officer to Customs and Border Protection officer.

  CBP supervisor recognition of Philip Haney’s service and devotion and request for higher commendation from DHS.

  The Director’s Award is the Federal Law Enforcment Training Center’s highest commendation.

  Commendation from the director of the National Targeting Center-Passenger of Philip Haney’s expertise in counterterrorism and his outstanding contribution to the NTC-P.

  US Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and US Sen. Tom Coburn, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, urge the deputy inspector general to investigate Philip Haney’s allegations of DHS misconduct.

  Request from US Rep Darrell Issa to the DHS deputy inspector general to complete his investigation into Philip Haney’s allegations of DHS misconduct.

  Notice of administrative suspension of Philip Haney’s Secret Clearance, which did not constitute an “adverse action.”

  The following documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that it was the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, along with the State Department, that “moved” the Tablighi Jamaat Initiative “in other directions,” as recounted in chapter 1.


  NOTES

  INTRODUCTION

  1. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter, DHS), “‘If You See Something, Say Something™’ Video: Protect Your Every Day Public Service Announcement (English–30 Seconds),” official website of the Department of Homeland Security, accessed January 15, 2016, http://www.dhs.gov/video/%E2%80%9Cif-you-see-something-say-something%E2%84%A2%E2%80%9D-video-protect-your-every-day-public-service-announceme-1.

  2. See DHS, “If You See Something, Say Something,” official website of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accessed January 15, 2016, http://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something.

  3. See DHS, “Countering Violent Extremism,” official website of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accessed January 15, 2016, http://www.dhs.gov/topic/countering-violent-extremism.

  CHAPTER 1: FROM JEDDAH TO SAN BERNARDINO

  1. Soumya Karlamangla, Paloma Esquivel, and Laura J. Nelson, “Rampage killers led secret life, hiding plans and weapons,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-shooters-san-bernardino-20151203-story.html.

  2. Stephanie Gosk, Hannah Rappleye, and Tracy Connor, “Mosque Members Say Shooter Syed Farook Seemed ‘Peaceful,’ Devout,” NBC News, December 3, 2015, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/mosque-members-say-shooter-syed-farook-seemed-peaceful-devout-n473721.

  3. United States District Court for the Central District of California, in the matter of United States of America v. Enrique Marquez Jr., par. 23, available online from the Los Angeles Times at “Criminal complaint for Enrique Marquez, December 17, 2015, http://documents.latimes.com/criminal-complaint-enrique-marquez/, p. 7.