By Sandy Fitzgerald | Saturday, 06 Feb 2016 03:39 PM
A veteran official with the Department of Homeland Security claims he and other staff were ordered to destroy records on a federal database that showed links between possible jihadists and Islamic terrorist groups.
"After leaving my 15-year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack," the former employee, Patrick Haney, wrote in anexplosive column that was published late Friday on The Hill website.
Haney alleges that the Obama administration has been "engaged in a bureaucratic effort" to destroy the raw material and intelligence the Department of Homeland Security has been collecting for years, leaving the United States open to mass-casualty attacks.
After the attempt, Haney writes, President Barack Obama "threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to 'connect the dots,' saying that it was not a failure to collect the intelligence that could have stopped the attack, but rather "'a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.'"
But most Americans were not aware that the Department of Homeland Security's employees suffered enormous damage to their morale from Obama's words, Haney said.
Further, many were infuriated "because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material — the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away."
Just one month before the attempted attack, Haney said, his DHS supervisors ordered him to either delete or modify the records for several hundred people tied to Islamist terror organizations, including Hamas, from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, the federal database.
Those records give DHS the ability to "connect dots," explained Haney, and every day, the agency's Custom and Border Protection officials use the database while watching people who are associated with known terrorist affiliations seeking patterns that could indicate a pending attack.
"Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that," said Haney.
"Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database," he wrote.
And even weeks after the attempted Christmas Day attack, Haney said, he was still being ordered to delete and scrub terrorists' records, making it more difficult to connect dots in the future.
The number of attempted and successful Islamic terrorist attacks kept increasing, notes Haney, including the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, conducted by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez' shooting of two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee last year; the attack conducted by Faisal Shahzad in May 2010; Detroit "honor" killer Rahim Alfatlawi in 2011; Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol in 2012; and Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen in 2014.
"It is demoralizing — and infuriating — that today, those elusive dots are even harder to find, and harder to connect, than they were during the winter of 2009," Haney concluded.
Why would they do this? I can think of two reasons.
One, they are trying to put a Muslim-paranoid country at ease and to take pressure off of Muslims living in this country. They are indeed targets these day. However you feel about them, you have to admit that.
The second reason is a bit more sinister. The government is actually trying to make it easier for terrorists so they will take advantage of things and make more attacks against us so the government will have an excuse to clamp down even more on our freedoms in the name of national security. Sort of like a false flag attack except with real flags.
The latter reason does sound a bit more paranoid, but I wouldn't put it past them. But I think the first reason is the more likely. Perhaps it's a little of both.