FBI drops the ball- again

[BDKJMU]

".....Will the investigation probe as well the FBI's own questioning of Tamerlan two years ago at the behest of an unspecified foreign government, presumably Russia, over his involvement with jihadist websites and other activities? Tamerlan Tsarnaev is the fifth person since 9/11 who has participated in terror attacks after questioning by the FBI. He was preceded by Nidal Hasan; drone casualty Anwar al Awlaki; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (born Carlos Leon Bledsoe), who murdered an Army recruit in Little Rock in June 2009; and David Coleman Headley, who provided intelligence to the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre in 2008. That doesn't count Abdulmutallab, who was the subject of warnings to the CIA that he was a potential terrorist......"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... n_newsreel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[danefan]

This is one of the most alarming issues with this entire incident.

The dude was handed to us as an extremist on a silver platter and somehow we stopped monitoring him?

[BDKJMU]

So the FBI is warned by Russian intel about this guy, that he is involved with jihadists. The FBI questions him, then does nothing. The guy subsequently travels to Russia for 6 months, including Chechnya, a hotbed of jihadist foment. He then returns to the US and sets up a Youtube account where he posts jihadist videos, yet this guy was apparently off the FBI's radar.

Just like with Hassan & the Fort Hood massacre, and the CIA dropping the ball with the underwear bomber.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bombers-phone- ... id=9457361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Inexcuseable.

[∞∞∞]

What can the FBI realistically do? An agency shouldn't have the right to essentially spy on you for travelling to a foreign nation and/or posting videos. There's a lot of people that post radical things (Islamic and otherwise) that disagree with the government. Should we watch all those people as well? It's a slippery slope...

[danefan]

What can the FBI realistically do? An agency shouldn't have the right to essentially spy on you for travelling to a foreign nation and/or posting videos. There's a lot of people that post radical things (Islamic and otherwise) that disagree with the government. Should we watch all those people as well? It's a slippery slope...

Here's a pretty good point where you lose your reasonable expectation to privacy in my opinion:

1. You travel to an area known for terrorist training.
2. You discuss publiclly (the interwebs is public afterall) extremist ideas.
3. Another country (one that we don't particularly get along with) warns us of you.
4. You live in the US

At that point, our government should be watching you. And you should accept that fate.

[∞∞∞]

...At that point, our government should be watching you. And you should accept that fate.

I'm still not so sure.

1. American citizens, especially Arabs, often travel to areas where terrorists train because that's where they have families. It doesn't necessarily mean they have ties to those organizations.

2. I personally think you should have the right to say whatever you want without being watched. You're open to criticism, but the government shouldn't intrude on your privacy because of your ideas.

3. I don't think a foreign warning should be enough for the US to spy on its people. The foreign government needs to back it up with evidence (I'm not sure if that was the case here). The FBI did what it could do by questioning him, but without solid facts, it's scary to give the government the power to watch someone.

I definitely understand what you're arguing, but I still think it's a slippery slope. Just because someone is doing a combination of weird things, it doesn't mean that the person is necessarily doing anything wrong. It's the classic rights vs. security argument.

[grizzaholic]

BDKJMU...what should the FBI had done? Just kill him right then and there? He was suspected so he must be guilty.

[danefan]

...At that point, our government should be watching you. And you should accept that fate.

I'm still not so sure.

1. American citizens, especially Arabs, often travel to areas where terrorists train because that's where they have families. It doesn't necessarily mean they have ties to those organizations.

2. I personally think you should have the right to say whatever you want without being watched. You're open to criticism, but the government shouldn't intrude on your privacy because of your ideas.

3. I don't think a foreign warning should be enough for the US to spy on its people. The foreign government needs to back it up with evidence (I'm not sure if that was the case here). The FBI did what it could do by questioning him, but without solid facts, it's scary to give the government the power to watch someone.

I definitely understand what you're arguing, but I still think it's a slippery slope. Just because someone is doing a combination of weird things, it doesn't mean that the person is necessarily doing anything wrong. It's the classic rights vs. security argument.

If you had either one of those 3 factors in isolation, I'd tend to agree that you were on the edge of the slope.

Where you have all three I think its a different story.

[BDKJMU]

BDKJMU...what should the FBI had done? Just kill him right then and there? He was suspected so he must be guilty.

Not completely ignore the guy like they apparently did when they closed the book on him.

DF has it right. One of the earlier pieces of evidence by itself doesn't mean he should be surveilled. But having 3 of them together- warned by foreign govt, travelled to foreign terrorists are known to operate, and linking/posting jihadists videos on youtube (which is a public website) means the FBI could have at least paid attention to him.

[89Hen]

".....Will the investigation probe as well the FBI's own questioning of Tamerlan two years ago at the behest of an unspecified foreign government, presumably Russia, over his involvement with jihadist websites and other activities?

Where does info like that come from?

[89Hen]

Not completely ignore the guy like they apparently did when they closed the book on him.

Where does info like that come from?

[BlueHen86]

I'm still not so sure.

1. American citizens, especially Arabs, often travel to areas where terrorists train because that's where they have families. It doesn't necessarily mean they have ties to those organizations.

2. I personally think you should have the right to say whatever you want without being watched. You're open to criticism, but the government shouldn't intrude on your privacy because of your ideas.

3. I don't think a foreign warning should be enough for the US to spy on its people. The foreign government needs to back it up with evidence (I'm not sure if that was the case here). The FBI did what it could do by questioning him, but without solid facts, it's scary to give the government the power to watch someone.

I definitely understand what you're arguing, but I still think it's a slippery slope. Just because someone is doing a combination of weird things, it doesn't mean that the person is necessarily doing anything wrong. It's the classic rights vs. security argument.

If you had either one of those 3 factors in isolation, I'd tend to agree that you were on the edge of the slope.

Where you have all three I think its a different story.

Also, the older brother was not an American citizen. I have no problem with the FBI monitoring non-US citizens, especially when they have been warned.

BDK is right on this one, the FBI dropped the ball here.

[BDKJMU]

Not completely ignore the guy like they apparently did when they closed the book on him.

Where does info like that come from?

"The FBI said it interviewed Mr. Tsarnaev in 2011 at the request of a foreign government—which officials identified as Russia—but the FBI said it didn't find evidence of suspicious activity and closed the case."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 79402.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

Not completely ignore the guy like they apparently did when they closed the book on him.

"The FBI said it interviewed Mr. Tsarnaev in 2011 at the request of a foreign government—which officials identified as Russia—but the FBI said it didn't find evidence of suspicious activity and closed the case."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 79402.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do love armchair QB's. Oh, Congressmen are asking the questions... then it must be correct that the FBI screwed up. Should this be looked at? Absolutely. Should we jumpt to idiotic conclusions? Well, this is the USA where we love to do that.

[CID1990]

Hindsight is always 20/20 in law enforcement.

"Al Qaeda Determined to Attack US"


Sent from the center of the universe.

[danefan]

Hindsight is always 20/20 in law enforcement.

"Al Qaeda Determined to Attack US"


Sent from the center of the universe.

20/20 is better in every industry.

Unfortunately, there are very few that result in death when you get something wrong.

That's why law enforecement is an incredibly difficult job. Even moreso when it becomes politicized.

[mrklean]

".....Will the investigation probe as well the FBI's own questioning of Tamerlan two years ago at the behest of an unspecified foreign government, presumably Russia, over his involvement with jihadist websites and other activities? Tamerlan Tsarnaev is the fifth person since 9/11 who has participated in terror attacks after questioning by the FBI. He was preceded by Nidal Hasan; drone casualty Anwar al Awlaki; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (born Carlos Leon Bledsoe), who murdered an Army recruit in Little Rock in June 2009; and David Coleman Headley, who provided intelligence to the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre in 2008. That doesn't count Abdulmutallab, who was the subject of warnings to the CIA that he was a potential terrorist......"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... n_newsreel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NYPD would have done a better job. Todays FBI is a Joke in Law Enforcement.

[dbackjon]

I'm still not so sure.

1. American citizens, especially Arabs, often travel to areas where terrorists train because that's where they have families. It doesn't necessarily mean they have ties to those organizations.

2. I personally think you should have the right to say whatever you want without being watched. You're open to criticism, but the government shouldn't intrude on your privacy because of your ideas.

3. I don't think a foreign warning should be enough for the US to spy on its people. The foreign government needs to back it up with evidence (I'm not sure if that was the case here). The FBI did what it could do by questioning him, but without solid facts, it's scary to give the government the power to watch someone.

I definitely understand what you're arguing, but I still think it's a slippery slope. Just because someone is doing a combination of weird things, it doesn't mean that the person is necessarily doing anything wrong. It's the classic rights vs. security argument.

If you had either one of those 3 factors in isolation, I'd tend to agree that you were on the edge of the slope.

Where you have all three I think its a different story.

I am going to have to lean more with Trip on this.

What you are advocating is a huge expansion of the FBI - billions and billions of dollars worth.

[kalm]

".....Will the investigation probe as well the FBI's own questioning of Tamerlan two years ago at the behest of an unspecified foreign government, presumably Russia, over his involvement with jihadist websites and other activities? Tamerlan Tsarnaev is the fifth person since 9/11 who has participated in terror attacks after questioning by the FBI. He was preceded by Nidal Hasan; drone casualty Anwar al Awlaki; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (born Carlos Leon Bledsoe), who murdered an Army recruit in Little Rock in June 2009; and David Coleman Headley, who provided intelligence to the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre in 2008. That doesn't count Abdulmutallab, who was the subject of warnings to the CIA that he was a potential terrorist......"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... n_newsreel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NYPD would have done a better job. Todays FBI is a Joke in Law Enforcement.

Protecting a country of 300 million with open borders and the freedoms we have ain't exactly easy.

[AZGrizFan]

If you had either one of those 3 factors in isolation, I'd tend to agree that you were on the edge of the slope.

Where you have all three I think its a different story.

I am going to have to lean more with Trip on this.

What you are advocating is a huge expansion of the FBI - billions and billions of dollars worth.

Me too. I agree with trip on this.

[CAA Flagship]

Hindsight is always 20/20 in law enforcement.

.......and house buying, career choice, marriage, car buying, choice of dinner, permission to let Ibanez and GATW become members at CS.com, grizza's crock pot cooking, 93henfan's insensitive comments, and Z's transfer to Idaho.

[GannonFan]

What would they have been able to do to stop this guy short of round the clock monitoring, and you figure assigning FBI guys to tail this guy, 24 hours a day, for the past two years, might have been able to catch him doing something that would've indicated he was planning this. Are we saying we should do that indefinitely with everyone who might be a risk?

[mrklean]

The NYPD would have done a better job. Todays FBI is a Joke in Law Enforcement.

Protecting a country of 300 million with open borders and the freedoms we have ain't exactly easy.

If you clam to be "THE BEST" Law Enforcement Department in the World then you need to step it up to get it done. There is no excuse for this.

[kalm]

Protecting a country of 300 million with open borders and the freedoms we have ain't exactly easy.

If you clam to be "THE BEST" Law Enforcement Department in the World then you need to step it up to get it done. There is no excuse for this.

What evidence do you have that they are not?

[mrklean]

If you clam to be "THE BEST" Law Enforcement Department in the World then you need to step it up to get it done. There is no excuse for this.

What evidence do you have that they are not?

What evidence do you have to say that they are? The NYPD is a Far batter Law Encorcement Department that the FBI, when it comes to solving crimes and Investigations. The only Department that the FBI would have on NYPD is the HBT/SRT unit.