'This is crazy': Retiree targeted by DHS after 'mild' reaction to Washington Post story

A 67-year-old retiree was slapped with a subpoena by the Department of Homeland Security after mildly criticizing an immigration prosecutor in an email after reading a newspaper article about an Afghan refugee's case.

Jon, who asked to withhold his last name out of fear for his family's safety, told the Washington Post that he had read the paper's Oct. 30 report about DHS case against the Afghan who had begged federal officials to let him stay in the U.S. because he believed the Taliban would kill him, and so the Philadelphia man searched online for the lead prosecutor's email.

“Mr. Dernbach, don’t play Russian roulette with H’s life,” Jon wrote to prosecutor Joseph Dernbach, who was named in the story. “Err on the side of caution. There’s a reason the US government along with many other governments don’t recognise the Taliban. Apply principles of common sense and decency.”

Jon signed his first and last name to the note and sent it, and five hours and one minute later he noticed an email alert on his phone.

“Google,” the message read, “has received legal process from a Law Enforcement authority compelling the release of information related to your Google Account.”

That's how he learned that the Department of Homeland Security had initiated an administrative subpoena that would soon be followed by a knock on the door from men with badges.

"We’re with Homeland Security," one of them said, according to Jon.

One of the federal agents showed Jon a copy of his email to the prosecutor as his dog barked inside and his wife questioned their purpose for the visit. The typically mild-mannered British immigrant worried the encounter could turn violent.

"We want to hear your side of the story," he said one of the agents told him.

He told the agents about the Post report and his dismay over the DHS attempt to deport the Afghan back to his home country, and they questioned how he got Dernbach’s email address, which he said turned up in a basic Google search. He argued that his email to the prosecutor was an opinion protected by the First Amendment.

“This is as mild as one could possibly interpret,” he recalled telling them.

The investigators agreed that his message broke no laws, but they said the prosecutor may have felt threatened by his references to Russian roulette and the Taliban, which Jon said he found absurd, but kept that opinion to himself. The agents left after about 20 minutes.

The agents had told him DHS could not obtain his emails, documents, photos or other content with an administrative subpoena, but they asked for detailed logs and evidence of his online activities dating back to Sept. 1, as well as credit card, driver’s license and Social Security numbers.

Google notified him three days later that it had "not yet responded” to Homeland Security’s legal demand, which he had assumed the company had done before the agents arrived, and the ACLU filed a motion pro bono to prevent the tech giant from ever releasing that information and accused the government of violating the statute that limits the use of administrative subpoenas for “immigration enforcement," as well as Jon's right to free speech.

“It doesn’t take that much to make people look over their shoulder, to think twice before they speak again,” said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler. “That’s why these kinds of subpoenas and other actions — the visits — are so pernicious. You don’t have to lock somebody up to make them reticent to make their voice heard. It really doesn’t take much, because the power of the federal government is so overwhelming.”

Jon, who's been a U.S. citizen for 27 years, was both comforted that Google had not turned over his information but unnerved that the two federal agents had tracked him down another way, he said. He noticed the government had asked the tech company not to tell him about the subpoena, although that request was also ignored.

“They don’t have to go into court,” Jon said. “They don’t have to bother spending the money to do that. They just rely on the acquiescence of these companies to do their bidding.”