`

national security

National Security Shakeup

What are Rep. John Ratcliffe’s qualifications for ascending to the position of Director of National Intelligence? Why did the Chicago’s Teacher Union come out in support of brutal Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro? The Heritage Foundation’s, Lt. Col. James Carafano joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Is Big Tech Good For The U.S.?

Will the “Russian Bots” make a comeback in the 2020 election? Does Congress actually know what the problems on social media are and how to regulate them? Is Big Tech making society better? The R Street Institute’s Shoshana Weissmann joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

The Risk Of Google In China

Google is one of the biggest companies in the world with thousands of capabilities that people use everyday. What are the possible national security concerns of China using Google’s technologies? The Heritage Foundation’s Lt. Col. James Carfano joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Remembering The Life And Legacy Of George H.W. Bush

Was Bush 41 the most truly prepared person to be president? Did he have quite possibly the best national security/foreign policy team in American history? Speaking of foreign policy, how did Trump fare over the weekend at the G20 Summit with a new NAFTA agreement and temporary truce in the trade war with China? Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Jed Babbin joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Brennan: The New National Treasure

Are there going to be more security clearances revoked? Why does the country go to outrage level 11 for everything regarding Trump? How is Brennan’s free speech being restricted while he’s making numerous TV appearances and tweeting away? Anchor of Special Report on Fox News, Bret Baier joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Right To Security Clearances Shall Not Be Infringed

Does the revocation of Brennan’s security clearance make Trump look childish and vindictive? Should Trump not stop with Brennan but look to Clapper, Power, Rice, and others? Where is the constitutional right to maintain security clearances? Former U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Brennan Decries Trump

Why do talking heads on TV still having classified security clearances? Does Brennan have a history of abusing this power? Is the irony lost on Brennan’s claims he is being silenced by the president while declaring it on cable TV and and in the New York Times? Former Chief Asst. U.S. Attorney and Contributing Editor at National Review, Andy McCarthy joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

The Fruitless Investigation

Does Trump have legitimate reasons to revoke security clearances? Will the Russian Collusion investigation continue to come up empty? Is there any evidence of Trump or his inner circle having dirty dealings with the Russians? What are the potential consequences of a relationship between local newspapers and state governments? Juan Williams, Fox News contributor and The Hill columnist, joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Is Trump Legitimizing Kim Jong Un?

Could what POTUS promises to do about our joint military exercises with the South Koreans cause concern as a major concession to the the North Koreans? How is the U.S. and China going to interact to keep the pressure on North Korea? What is the economic stability of North Korea? Senior Research Fellow for Asian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, Dean Cheng joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

On Again/Off Again Relationship With North Korea

The U.S. is refusing economic aid for North Korea until they denuclearize, but is China interfering in that proposition? Is Kim Jong Un’s stock rising due to his possible meeting with the most important leader in the free world? What are the dangers and possible concessions for the U.S. in their summit with North Korea? Senior Editor for the Washington Free Beacon Bill Gertz joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Bolton: “Brilliant, America First” Appointment

What is the assessment of Trump's national security shakeup from the Israeli perspective? Is the PLO finally going to be treated as the terrorist organization they are? Will Bolton’s goal as National Security Adviser be not democratizing the world but protecting American security? Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post and Director of the Israeli Security Project, Caroline Glick joins Dan and Scot to discuss.

Related Content

Republicans: “Release Everything,” Democrats: “Release Nothing”

“Barack Obama, a Chicago machine politician turned the federal government into a Chicago style machine.” Did the Obama administration know the press would never touch him? Therefore, they started making up their own rules? Why was the media against releasing the memo, asserting it would affect national security interests before they even knew what was in it? Screenwriter, essayist and author, Andrew Klavan joins Dan and Amy to discuss.

Related Content

Persons of Interest

Ben Rhodes, Obama's former National Security Advisor, is now a "person of interest" in the investigation into the inappropriate unmaskings of American citizens made during the transition in January. How important is it that investigators get to the bottom of this crime? Was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' behavior in the video with Capitol Police consistent with that of a guilty person? If the head of the RNC had an IT person who also worked for 30 Congressmen and was now under arrest, how would media coverage differ? Is Special Counsel Robert Muller's friendship with former FBI Director James Comey a "clear violation of federal law" and "a conflict of interest," as suggested by Republican Congressman Trent Franks? Noah Rothman, Associate Editor for Commentary Magazine, joins Dan and Shaun Thompson to discuss. 

RELATED CONTENT

What Is The Alleged Crime?

What specifically is the alleged crime that the special counsel is looking into? And what is the evidence of said alleged crime? Are leakers doing the real damage to national security? Is Mike Flynn just being judicious by pleading the fifth? Dan & Amy are joined by Alan Dershowitz, Former Professor at Harvard Law School, to discuss.

RELATED CONTENT

The Clash At The Kremlin

How's that "Russian Patsy" narrative on Rex Tillerson holding up? Following, his meeting at the Kremlin, what is our relationship status with Russia? How is Obama like Stanley Baldwin? National Review Online writer Victor David Hanson discusses "Rexxon's" meeting with Putin and Trump's reversal on NATO with Dan Proft and John Kass.  

Related Content

What Comes After Assad?

Is regime change the moral and national security imperative in Syria? How poorly will history treat President Obama for lying about WMDs in Syria? AEI's Michael Rubin answers these questions and discusses the difference having a Secretary of State Russia takes seriously makes in foreign relations with Dan and Amy.

Related Content

Making Sense Of The Fallout

What is the framework for a political solution in Syria? That must be done  in a Post-ISIS Syria? What message did the Trump Administration's decision to bomb Syrian Airfields send to North Korea? Former US Ambassador John Bolton joins Dan and Amy to make sense of Trump national security's team making sense of the administration's Syria-ISIS-Russia policy

Related Content

Susan Rice: Dashboard Saint

Does Susan Rice deserve the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Should Republicans love Susan Rice? Should Trump start to act like a normal President? Dan & Amy pose these questions to Jonah Goldberg, National Review columnist, and author of “Liberal Fascism” & “The Tyranny of Clichés.”

Related Content

Unmasking Susan Rice

Multiple sources claim that Susan Rice, former National Security Adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance. Were her efforts iin pursuit of National Security interests? Or were Rice's actions illegal?  Former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales joined Dan and Amy with reaction to the story.

 

Related Content

DHS Whistleblower Identifies Orlando Killer's Father As Mosque Executive

Philip Haney, a Department of Homeland Security whistleblower, who claims investigations he initiated that could've prevented both the San Bernardino and Orlando terrorist attacks told Dan & Amy that the Orlando killer's father was more involved in the mosque his son attended than he has so far indicated. If true, this would call into question the FBI's July 2014 investigation of the terrorist who murdered 49.

View full transcript


Dan Proft: Good morning, Dan and Amy, so of course, one of the questions in the wake of a massacre like Orlando, and the worst in the history of this country, is what could have been done to prevent it. Is there something that could have been done to prevent it, at any level of law enforcement? And I go to Philip Haney. We talked about Philip Haney about 6 months ago, after the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Amy, if you recall. Philip Haney is a former Department of Homeland Security agent who said at the time that an investigation he was conducting into a fundamentalist group operating in the US, a fundamentalist Islamic group, may have helped stop the San Bernardino terrorist. He went on with Megyn Kelly and FOX and other outlets to explain the whistleblowing that he did to alert people to what happened. He was looking at a group, a Sunni Islamic group called Tablighi Jamaat. Amy Jacobson: Common spelling. Dan Proft: Tablighi Jamaat I think is the pronunciation. Mr. Haney can correct me. And it was linked to, essentially, one of the male terrorist killer in San Bernardino, his mosque, the mosque that he attended. Now, fast forward to Orlando, and Mr. Haney is suggesting that the same organization that was connected to San Bernardino may have had connections to Orlando, that the Islamic center of Fort Pierce, Florida, is part of the same Tablighi Jamaat network. And by the way, the important thing he’s a whistleblower, because the investigation, going back to San Bernardino, was shut down by the State Department and the Homeland Security’s office for civil rights and civil liberties, because the Federal Government did not want to profile Islamic groups. That was essentially the rationale, and again, the State’s Department, when Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. So for more on this we’re happy to be joined by the aforesaid Philip Haney, who is also the author of a new book, “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government's Submission to Jihad”. Mr. Haney, thanks for joining us, appreciate it. Phillip Haney: Thank you very much, and by the way, you’ve summarized it perfectly. It is Tablighi Jamaat, but you set the table for the case absolutely perfectly. My premise, people who have heard me talk in public, and when I was an act of duty officer, I always operated on the same premise: that individuals don’t function in a vacuum; there’s always a network, an organization, especially within the Islamic worldview. People don’t operate on their own; they have a very strong awareness of being part of a family, of being part of an organization, of being part of a global community. People just don’t think as lone ranger individuals. They’re always part of a network. That was always my premise in counter-terrorism work, and I was very successful at it. Dan Proft: So, take us back to San Bernardino, make the connection and then fast forward to Orlando and the running connection. Phillip Haney: The San Bernardino case, I speak of a case that had 67 records. These are law enforcement records in a system called TENS, and it’s our database. I call it an archive database. It’s where we keep all the information about passports and birthdays and family names, those kinds of things. I worked on the Tablighi Jamaat case at the National Targeting Center in Washington in 2011 and 2012. It was subsequently shut down, as you said, by influence of the State Department. Well, while they were in process of literally shutting the case down at the Washington level, I was back in my home port, working on a component of that case, focusing on an organization right in Chicago, called the Institute of Islamic Education. And I linked together 67 individuals and organizations of a network that was not only national, but international as well. And the brand name of that network is Dar Al Uloom. That’s the name of the mosque in San Bernardino, Dar Al Uloom of Islamiyah San Bernardino. It’s a trademark. Everywhere in the world, you know what you’re going to find when you go to a Dar Al Uloom mosque, or a Dar Al Uloom Madrasah. Amy Jacobson: What are you going to find? Phillip Haney: What are you going to find? People that are Salafi, which means they go back to the original form of Islam, and they are promoting the implementation of Sharia Law. That is ultimately the gravitational force behind the global Islamic movement. Wherever you go is the desire, compulsion, if you will, to implement Sharia Law everywhere in the world. And North America, United States is not exempt from that force of gravity. And that is what they propose to do. Dan Proft: That’s a good aside, that’s helpful for context. So continue in terms of San Bernardino leading to Orlando. Phillip Haney: Okay. What I did is I established irrefutably that the shooter, Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, was affiliated with the Islamic center at Fort Pierce, and that was verified by its Imam, Shafeeq Ur Rahman, who gave statements to the public that yes, indeed, Omar Mateen attended the mosque. But what we found out in the last few hours is that Omar Mateen’s father, the one we’ve seen in public, is the Vice-President of the mosque, which means that the relationship, or the affiliations, or the connections, were a lot stronger than what he initially implied. There was no separation or random acts. These people all knew each other, along with the person called Marcus Dwayne Robertson, a.k.a. Abu Taubah. He also was affiliated with the same mosque; that the individual that was released early from prison for firearms charges and tax fraud. He was released about a year ago. And he teaches a course called Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary, a.k.a. Timbuktu Seminary, which teaches again, Sharia Law. Amy Jacobson: So do you think Seddique Mateen knew what his son was doing? I mean, he’s denied it several times on television, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t know. Phillip Haney: I believe that it’s virtually impossible in close knit families and close knit communities that people don’t know what the other ones are doing. It’s an implausible premise that these people are operating so far off the radar that nobody in their immediate family knows. They do know. Dan Proft: If the Orlando killer’s father – so if he’s the Vice President of that mosque – the FBI investigation in July of 2014 looked at the possibility of a connect between the Orlando killer and the Syrian suicide bomber from the same mosque and was found there to be no connection. They attended the same mosque and that was it, according to what Jim Comey said yesterday. Do you find that to be credible? Phillip Haney: Well, Moner Mohammad Abu Salha is the American citizen that blew himself up in 2014. They did attend the same mosque. Now you have 2 individuals who were dedicated to the promotion of Islam attending the same small mosque in Fort Pierce. In law enforcement, that’s what we call a clue. Dan Proft: Right, but also too, because the father’s leadership role in that mosque, that makes a material difference as well. That starts to solidify those connects potentially. Phillip Haney: That opens up an entirely new dimension of analysis, because people are people. When you operate in that close of an arena, it’s impossible to maintain the premise that you didn’t know. The father is going to say he didn’t know about Abu Salah. The father’s going to say he didn’t know about his own son? The father’s going to say he didn’t know about this individual, Marcus Dwayne Robertson? How many people has he influenced that are affiliated with that same mosque? And that’s only the starting point. Amy Jacobson: And we learned yesterday from James Comey that in 2014 they didn’t interview Omar Mateen because that he went to the same mosque as that first American suicide bomber. Phillip Haney: I’d like to tell you something that you may not have ever heard, and you can look this up on the web. In 2012, the FBI published the Training Document – it’s called the Touchstone Training Document. It has 3 major paragraphs within the 3 page document. In paragraph 1 it says plainly – I’m going to slightly paraphrase – that just because an individual is affiliated with a known terrorist group, you cannot automatically assume that that individual is a terrorist himself. That’s in their training guidelines. Dan Proft: Well, that kind of answers this next question, but from your experience inside the Department of Homeland Security as an agent, my question was going to be, how much as political corrected infected DHS and law enforcement and the ability to interdict terrorism. You’ve given me one indication, just with that recitation from the manual, but your experience more generally at the Department of Homeland Security. Phillip Haney: Well, I was founding member. I was in March of 2003, and therefore I saw the entire progression, the entire unfolding of the history of the Department of Homeland Security. And the first two or three years are what I call the Halcyon days. We were actually doing our job, connecting the dots, putting faces together, and we were very effective. We were following the original Founding Mandate of the agency. But about in 2006, the first of what became 9 times that I was investigated by my own agency occurred. When I wrote an article called “Green Tide rising – Hamas Descends”. And I was turned in by CIA colleagues, who said that I could not have written the article unless I unethically accessed classified information. And after 11 months, I was finally exonerated. But to this day I’ve always asked myself, if my CIA colleagues were so concerned about that article, why didn’t they just ask me how I came to the conclusion? So this was in 2006; the first of 9 times that I was investigated. Dan Proft: And in September of 2014 you had your security clearance revoked, as well as your access to work databases, and that’s when you said enough is enough and you flipped? Phillip Haney: Well, they also took my gun, and anybody in the military or in law enforcement knows that’s the most humiliating thing that can be done to you, because earning the right to carry a gun as a law enforcement officer is no easy thing. You have to qualify every quarter, it’s a very serious responsibility, and to take it from you is like stripping you professionally naked. And they never explained the reason why they did it, and that’s another carious thing about the whole process, is that essentially they never explained anything why they did it. So the last 9 months of my career I was sequestered and I just spent the time preparing for my pending retirement, and fortunately, I was old enough, I was 62, and I went ahead and retired. And I prepared to write the book that you mentioned, “See something, say nothing”, which is a story of my time as a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security who was a firsthand observer. Because of my background in the Middle East, and my training in the strategy and tactics of the global Islamic movement and Qu’ranic Arabic, I was able to discern and decipher some of the deeper meanings of the major things that were happening from 9/11 right up through current times. Because even though I’m retired, my vow is still active. Dan Proft: Alright. I’m sorry, Mr. Haney, but we’ve got to go, but Philip Haney, he’s the author of “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government's Submission to Jihad”. Mr. Haney, thanks so much for joining us; really appreciate it. Phillip Haney: I do appreciate it, thank you everyone for listening.

Related Content