Too often, after deadly terrorist attacks, we learn the FBI had advance warnings that somehow slipped through the cracks. Here's what's driving them, what should be done, and what is driving them. (Original airdate Jan. 16). One of the FBI's most critical functions is to monitor for and hopefully prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil
In 2009, Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan shouts "Allah Akbar" and opens fire at Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13, wounding 42
- It's the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11
- Adding to the horror: the FBI had been looking at Hasan due to his chilling communications about suicide bombings with a top al-Qaida terrorist.
- Five months before the shooting, the FBI Washington Field Office concluded he was of no threat.
In 2013, two Russians living in the U.S., the Tsarnaev brothers, set off two bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring hundreds.
- Russian intelligence had repeatedly warned US officials about the Tsarnaevs.
- The FBI questioned the brothers, but found no reason to monitor them.
How could we have been warned specifically about them and yet, it looks like, missed them?
- Pete Hoekstra sees the FBI misses as a pattern and a problem.
- The FBI needs to step up and be able to do this even better or to begin doing it better than what they have in the past.
O'Connor: These are people who may have interactions with law enforcement.
- They may have come up on the radar screen, but does that radar actually bleep to the point where something can be done to stop this?
- Are there charges that can be brought against this person?
9 of the 13 missed cases involve Muslim attackers.
- Hoekstra says he doesn't think it's a coincidence that 9 of these FBI misses are related to Muslim attackers
- The same priorities that they establish there also affect other areas of the investigation
- In most cases, it appears that law enforcement did their due diligence, but under the constraints of law enforcement's ability to investigate
No comments:
Post a Comment