MSNBC’s Chris Hayes entertained a guest who framed the fact that Donald Trump bowed out of the next debate, as the act of a strongman in power, bullying a put-upon, abused press. How does one unpack such messy thinking? First to consider is that Trump has been extremely accessible to media.
More important:
1. Trump is not in power. He is not bolstered by police powers. Not yet. So he is not a political strongman.
2. Trump has grown his support like a business grows on the free market, non-coercively. You offer a product. If people like it, they buy it. Your business grows through the democratic dollar vote of the consumer. Again, no coercion was involved in Trump’s rise.
3. In absenting himself from a media extravaganza with the showy Megyn Kelly, Trump might annoy media, but he is not disappointing his base, who’ve had enough of the debates, and he is certainly not violating anyone’s rights.
My 2011 “Sinophobia Trumps Common Sense,” unfairly called Donald Trump “megalomaniacal.” It fairly pointed out, however, that “Sinophobia is sanctioned among American opinion makers. The dislike for China falls within the realm of perfectly respectable economic theory.”
The business mogul is motivated by the sense that the nimbus of great power that surrounds the US is dissipating. It hasn’t occurred to him to search closer to home for the causes of America’s economic anemia—at Fanny, Freddie, and the Fed, for a start. Since Trump has no idea what’s potting, and is not eager to look in his own plate — he blames OPEC and China for the burdens of doing business in the US.
American job losses are not the result of freer trade and an excess of imports over exports, but of government policies that prevent capital accumulation in the United States, among them policies that limit imports. An essential part of any economic policy that would truly help to “make America great again” is to avoid preventing imports. …
It’s one thing for the federal government to subpoena “the data on the iPhone 5C” of jihadi murderers Rizwan Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik. It’s quite another for the FBI and prosecutors to demand “Apple produce software that would give investigators access to the iPhone at issue.”
The Fourth Amendment requires the government to present to a judge evidence of wrongdoing on the part of a specific target of the warrant, and it requires that the warrant specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. The whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect the right to be left alone — privacy — by preventing general warrants.
In the case of the Fockers, I mean the Farooks, there is ample probable cause.
Probable cause is a level of evidence sufficient to induce a neutral judge to conclude that it is more likely than not that the government will find what it is looking for in the place it wants to search, and that what it is looking for will be evidence of criminal behavior.
But for a magistrate to order that Apple make an application to assist the Feds in doing their work: That’s tantamount to conscripting the company to involuntarily work for the feds. There is no warrant in the Constitution for that!
This is why I get frustrated when people waffle about the need for someone to enforce the US Constitution. What Constitution? Surely it’s time to realize the Constitution is, for the most, a dead letter? Alas, in the fullness of time, a provision will be found for this new violation. Allusions will be made to our “changing, dangerous world.”
To shut down an investigation into an Islamic sect suspected of infiltrating US mosques is not “political correctness run amok,” as Fox News neocon Marc Thiessen finesses it, but treason.
Consider: You hire a private firm to protect you, only to discover that, as part of the scheme to “protect” you, your guards undergo sensitivity training which would desensitize them to potential evildoers, thus giving the latter easier access to you and yours. Given that this strategy, if it can be so called, would undermine your life, and considering this company would be violating its contractual responsibilities by reneging on the obligation to defend you—you’d first fire the firm. If the negligence came at a cost; you’d sue. You’d put this “business” and its “business plan” out of business.
Government has no meaningful contract with its citizen (other than a dead-letter Constitution). Thus you can’t fire leadership at Homeland Security for intentionally adopting policies that have likely already imperiled citizens. But you can, at least, call a spade a spade. It’s good to frame matters with precision.
What was exposed by Philip Haney—a heroic, soft-spoken, demure, retired employee of the Department of Homeland Security—is treason by any other name.
Philip Haney, a former employee at the Department of Homeland Security, has revealed that his superiors shut down an investigation that might have raised a red flag and averted the recent Islamic terror attack in San Bernardino. On Thursday, Megyn Kelly interviewed Haney, with backstory provided by Trace Gallagher.
Per Gallagher, Haney was one of the founding members of DHS. He was later assigned to the Intelligence Review Unit, where he investigated individuals with potential links to terrorism. While in this position he began to observe trends, including links between global terror networks and radicalized Muslims who were coming to America.
A year into the investigation, the State Department and the DHS Civil Rights Division told Haney that tracking these groups and individuals was problematic because they were Islamic groups. Haney reports that internal memos forbade him from developing any cases based on this profile.
His investigation was shut down, and many of his records were deleted, including evidence about a suspicious group as well as specific individuals tied to the mosque in Riverside, California, that Farook attended.
Haney notified Congress and the DHS inspector general about the termination of his investigation into Islamic groups. Instead of reinstating the investigation, he asserts they retaliated, relieving him of his duties and revoking his security clearance. Fox News reached out to the DHS for comment. They claimed that there are “many holes” in Haney’s story but could not comment further due to privacy laws.
During the interview with Kelly, Haney went into some detail about connections among various terror groups. He also spoke about the thousands of individuals his unit was tracking who were traveling in and out of the United States on the visa waiver program. As the investigation continued, more and more pieces fell into place. Among them, and as noted, Haney identified individuals connected to Farook’s mosque who would have been flagged. Haney did not say that Farook, in particular, was one of those people, but he appeared confident that if his investigation had been allowed to go forward, it is likely that Farook would have been identified. Once identified and flagged, Farook would have been put on the no-fly list because of his association with that mosque, and/or the K-1 visa his wife received might have been denied because of Farook’s affiliation with a known terror organization via the mosque (or perhaps directly, as well).
In sum, Haney believes that if he had been allowed to continue his investigation, he may have uncovered enough information to have thwarted the recent terror attack in San Bernardino.
Haney appears to have had a distinguished career, stating he has a commendation letter for finding 300 terrorists.
UPDATE (1/2): From the just-cited TAT, second-hand report, it must be concluded that neither did Congress heed Mr. Haney’s pleas. Haney’s own words, in The Hill, are more powerful:
Administration nixed probe into Southern California jihadists
By Philip Haney
There are terrorists in our midst and they arrived here using legal means right under the noses of the federal law enforcement agencies whose mission is to stop them. That is not due to malfeasance or lack of effort on the part of these officers; it is due to the restrictions placed on them by the Obama administration.
I was a firsthand witness to how these policies deliberately prevented scrutiny of Islamist groups. The two San Bernardino jihadists, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, may have benefited from the administration’s closure of an investigation I initiated on numerous groups infiltrating radicalized individuals into this country.
While working for the Department of Homeland Security for 13 years, I identified individuals affiliated with large, but less well-known groups such as Tablighi Jamaat and the larger Deobandi movement freely transiting the United States. At the National Targeting Center, one of the premier organizations formed to “connect the dots,” I played a major role in an investigation into this trans-national Islamist network. We created records of individuals, mosques, Islamic Centers and schools across the United States that were involved in this radicalization effort. The Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque in San Bernardino was affiliated with this network and we had identified a member of it in our investigation. Farook frequented that mosque and was well-known to the congregation and mosque leadership.
Another focus of my investigation was the Pakistani women’s Islamist group al-Huda, which counted Farook’s wife, Tashfeen Malik, as a student. While the al-Huda International Welfare Foundation distanced themselves from the actions of their former pupil, Malik’s classmates told the Daily Mail she changed significantly while studying at al-Huda, gradually becoming “more serious and strict.” More ominously, the group’s presence in the U.S. and Canada is not without its other ties to ISIS and terrorism. In 2014, three recent former students at al-Huda’s affiliate school in Canada, aged 15 to 18, left their homes to join the Islamic State in Syria.
We had these two groups in our sights; if the investigation had continued and additional links been identified and dots connected, we might have given advance warning of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s attendance at al-Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. It could also have led to denial of Malik’s K-1 visa or possibly gotten Farook placed on the No Fly list.
But after more than six months of research and tracking; over 1,200 law enforcement actions and more than 300 terrorists identified; and a commendation for our efforts; DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?
Worse still, the administration then went back and erased the dots we were diligently connecting. Even as DHS closed my investigation, I knew that data I was looking at could prove significant to future counterterror efforts and tried to prevent the information from being lost to law enforcement. In 2013, I met with the DHS Inspector General in coordination with several members of Congress to attempt to warn the American people’s elected representatives about the threat.
In retaliation, DHS and the Department of Justice subjected me to a series of investigations and adverse actions, including one by that same Inspector General. None of them showed any wrongdoing; they seemed aimed at stopping me from blowing the whistle on this problem. Earlier this year, I was finally able to honorably retire from government and I’m now taking my story to the American people as a warning.
My law enforcement colleagues and I must conduct our work while respecting the rights of those we monitor. But what I witnessed suggests the Obama administration is more concerned with the rights of non-citizens in known Islamist groups than with the safety and security of the American people.
