A law enforcement official says the father of the man suspected in bombings in New York City and New Jersey had contacted the FBI following a 2014 stabbing to express concerns that his son was a terrorist.
The official says the FBI looked into the matter, but that Mohammad Rahami later retracted his comment and said he meant that his son was hanging out with the wrong crowd, including gangs.
Ahmad Khan Rahami was arrested for stabbing a person in the leg and possession of a firearm in 2014. But a grand jury declined to indict him, despite a warning from the arresting officer that Rahami was likely "a danger to himself or others."
The official who spoke to AP insisted on anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
Mohammad Rahami told reporters outside his chicken restaurant in Elizabeth, New Jersey, on Tuesday morning that he called law enforcement twice. He didn't elaborate.
The ultra liberal mayor of new York says, yes, this is obviously terrorism and yet the federal rep at the news conference is still going with the jargon.
We have to consider that the jargon and whatever functions cause that jargon may have a chilling effect on common sense
Should they have rousted the guy periodically so that he knows they're watching him? Should they allocate the time and resources to monitor him for years? Do they even have the right to do this without further grounds than an accusation? Would any of this likely have lead to stopping him?
RE: What is it that we expect law enforcement to do with such accusations?
Should they have rousted the guy periodically so that he knows they're watching him? Should they allocate the time and resources to monitor him for years? Do they even have the right to do this without further grounds than an accusation? Would any of this likely have lead to stopping him?
It was confirmed this morning he wasn't put on a watch list. I'm not sure of everything that goes into monitoring people on a watch list, but this fuck sure as hell should have been on it.
Travel to Afghanistan + assault charges + his own father calling him a terrorist should equal some sort of monitoring or surveillance.
RE: What is it that we expect law enforcement to do with such accusations?
Should they have rousted the guy periodically so that he knows they're watching him? Should they allocate the time and resources to monitor him for years? Do they even have the right to do this without further grounds than an accusation? Would any of this likely have lead to stopping him?
With the massive amount of signals intelligence resources we have in play, you'd think at a bare minimum they'd be monitoring all his communications, his travel, etc.
This one looks like it should have been a home run - traveled to Afghanistan and got married, sudden change in his religious views. It's the California shooter all over again.
Seems like the FBI skipped it because the tip came on the heels of him stabbing his brother and beating up his stepmother. They must have figured the father was seeking revenge and not being honest.
Very good article on what it's like to be the parent of a terrorist
A U.S. law enforcement official confirmed the elder Rahami had twice met with the FBI, first saying that he was worried his son was hanging out with people who might have connections to militants, but two weeks later contending his real concern was that the son was associating with criminals.
The FBI tried to check out the father's story, and conducted what officials now describe as an "assessment" of that information. However, investigators found no evidence to prompt a full-scale investigation into the son, and the initial investigation was closed without action, the law enforcement official said.
At the time, the son was being held on an assault charge for stabbing his brother during a domestic dispute, another law enforcement official said. Link - ( New Window )
was totally in the dark. It's just a wee too coincidental that the son he reported to the FBI as a potential terrorist just happens to have actually become a terrorist bomber.
was totally in the dark. It's just a wee too coincidental that the son he reported to the FBI as a potential terrorist just happens to have actually become a terrorist bomber.
Isnt the "family in the dark" angle a rebuttal to the "they're complicit for not reporting him" angle?
Complicit for reporting, then retracting, and never saying another word as their son was planning a bombing.
It would be one thing if they tipped the FBI, and then those incompetent clowns said "Hey, we checked him out and he's clean." Instead, the father went back and said "About that terrorism thing I said? Yeah, I made that up because I was mad at him for hanging around with gangsters" which led to the FBI shrugging their shoulders and closing the investigation.
Cmon man.... What the hell are the parents supposed to do ? Unless they absolutely knew what exactly this kid was up to they couldn't do much of anything.
was too busy to follow up on this, what with their ongoing program of trying to entrap other muslim families in by cooking up "terrorist plots" and infiltrating their communities to recruit them. Google the Fort Dix Five for a good example.
for the first time ever......Mark C has a good point
Are still openly and "legally" selling K-2 and synthetic pot near the local schools here in NYC. But not re-selling single tobacco cigs, fuck no, that one is a crime I guess.
Are still openly and "legally" selling K-2 and synthetic pot near the local schools here in NYC. But not re-selling single tobacco cigs, fuck no, that one is a crime I guess.
No, both are illegal. Doesn't mean people aren't selling them, but they're both against the law. One for health reasons, the other for taxation.
you don't call the cops on your kid and then rescind. But, I'm guessing it happens all the time. loser families do loser things to their family members.
and then it looks bad when the cops, or FBI, doesn't connect the dots, when most of the time it's Dad just being pissed off at Jr, or Jr being pissed off at Dad.
and then they all blame society for their failings.
you don't call the cops on your kid and then rescind. But, I'm guessing it happens all the time. loser families do loser things to their family members.
and then it looks bad when the cops, or FBI, doesn't connect the dots, when most of the time it's Dad just being pissed off at Jr, or Jr being pissed off at Dad.
and then they all blame society for their failings.
Everyone who calls the cops on their kids rescinds. Maybe not about terrorism, but about every other fucking thing.
Ahmad Khan Rahami worked as a night guard for two months in 2011 at an AP administrative office in Cranbury, New Jersey. At the time, he was employed by Summit Security, a private contractor.
The AP's chief of global security, Danny Spriggs, said Rahami often engaged colleagues in long political discussions, expressing sympathy for the Taliban and disdain for US military action in Afghanistan.
But no juvenile or domestic courtroom ever functions like that. They almost always back up, after the emergency seems to have passed and they reckon with the consequences the loved one might face.
RE: man, the FBI has really come off looking bad in many ways
The FBI is a weird beast. It's got many capable people (many of my friends have gone that route), but it also just as easily dismiss some incredibly talented people for the most trivial of reasons from their hiring process. Often they want people who are squeaky clean more so than someone with actual experience in the real world (often coming with some baggages).
RE: RE: What is it that we expect law enforcement to do with such accusations?
Should they have rousted the guy periodically so that he knows they're watching him? Should they allocate the time and resources to monitor him for years? Do they even have the right to do this without further grounds than an accusation? Would any of this likely have lead to stopping him?
With the massive amount of signals intelligence resources we have in play, you'd think at a bare minimum they'd be monitoring all his communications, his travel, etc.
This one looks like it should have been a home run - traveled to Afghanistan and got married, sudden change in his religious views. It's the California shooter all over again.
Seems like the FBI skipped it because the tip came on the heels of him stabbing his brother and beating up his stepmother. They must have figured the father was seeking revenge and not being honest.
Yeah...it doesn't work that way. There are limited resources and higher restrictions to conducting any kind of collections (especially of US citizens) than what Snowden ever came out to accuse the US government of. And we definitely don't have some massive SIGINT collection resources, especially when it involves civilians traveling.
I'll defer, but the feds I've spoken to seem to think otherwise
In the case of the Orlando shooter, he was on the watch list and under surveillance for some time. Is there something about this individual specifically that would have exempted him from that?
RE: I'll defer, but the feds I've spoken to seem to think otherwise
In the case of the Orlando shooter, he was on the watch list and under surveillance for some time. Is there something about this individual specifically that would have exempted him from that?
Collection of any kind with regards to US persons (doesn't even have to be a citizen) in the US (as long as they aren't agents of foreign powers) is an extremely touchy and often time consuming and resource intensive process. And while the FBI may have ability to do so, it's not really all that robust, hence they have to either have service providers work with them or have to use collection capabilities that are highly scrutinized.
People think that the US government can just put anyone on collect, but there are several hurdles to get over before it's even possible. First being whether there is enough and sufficient justification and information to put that individual on collection. The days of the PATRIOTIC ACT style "all is ok in the name of counterterrorism" has been over for a long time. Not only has the checks and balances become more restrictive, but federal agencies are more apt to not get themselves into trouble by putting forth less than concrete cases for collection. This means that a guy like the one from Orlando or even this asshole most likely weren't high enough priority for the limited time and resources available in the FBI to run everything to ground that get reported. We can always criticize this in hindsight, but at the moments these guys were reported, there may not have been enough compelling information to push this further.
Then we come to the actual capability and resources to continue collection on these individuals as well as translate any communications and analyze the information to develop actionable intelligence for further actions/prosecution. Think about the fact that the FBI as an organization conducting counterterrorism operations and intelligence (as a whole) work is less than 10k or so (and that's a generous number). Add to that the limited number of people in the FBI and other partner agencies who are able to speak the target languages. Now you've severely restricted your ability to do meaningful work in a timely manner. There are potentially hundreds more developed and known cases currently being worked that have more clear connections to overseas terrorist networks and homegrown individuals.
These factors may have led to individuals like this guy and the guy from Orlando having been dropped from consideration. It sucks, but they can only go with what they can prove at the moment to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, it's onto the next guy...and then next...and then next. Not everyone can be "that target," who turns out to be a true threat.
TL;DR...here's a summary of the lengthy post above...
This guy may not have been deemed worthy of time and resources at the time of his reporting. So they did a cursory investigation and made a call to move on based on the need for stronger evidence (because it's actually hard to collect on US persons) and limited collection, language, and analytic capabilities. Not everyone is "that target" easily identified and justified for counterterrorism efforts.
RE: RE: I'll defer, but the feds I've spoken to seem to think otherwise
In the case of the Orlando shooter, he was on the watch list and under surveillance for some time. Is there something about this individual specifically that would have exempted him from that?
Collection of any kind with regards to US persons (doesn't even have to be a citizen) in the US (as long as they aren't agents of foreign powers) is an extremely touchy and often time consuming and resource intensive process. And while the FBI may have ability to do so, it's not really all that robust, hence they have to either have service providers work with them or have to use collection capabilities that are highly scrutinized.
People think that the US government can just put anyone on collect, but there are several hurdles to get over before it's even possible. First being whether there is enough and sufficient justification and information to put that individual on collection. The days of the PATRIOTIC ACT style "all is ok in the name of counterterrorism" has been over for a long time. Not only has the checks and balances become more restrictive, but federal agencies are more apt to not get themselves into trouble by putting forth less than concrete cases for collection. This means that a guy like the one from Orlando or even this asshole most likely weren't high enough priority for the limited time and resources available in the FBI to run everything to ground that get reported. We can always criticize this in hindsight, but at the moments these guys were reported, there may not have been enough compelling information to push this further.
Then we come to the actual capability and resources to continue collection on these individuals as well as translate any communications and analyze the information to develop actionable intelligence for further actions/prosecution. Think about the fact that the FBI as an organization conducting counterterrorism operations and intelligence (as a whole) work is less than 10k or so (and that's a generous number). Add to that the limited number of people in the FBI and other partner agencies who are able to speak the target languages. Now you've severely restricted your ability to do meaningful work in a timely manner. There are potentially hundreds more developed and known cases currently being worked that have more clear connections to overseas terrorist networks and homegrown individuals.
These factors may have led to individuals like this guy and the guy from Orlando having been dropped from consideration. It sucks, but they can only go with what they can prove at the moment to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, it's onto the next guy...and then next...and then next. Not everyone can be "that target," who turns out to be a true threat.
The official says the FBI looked into the matter, but that Mohammad Rahami later retracted his comment and said he meant that his son was hanging out with the wrong crowd, including gangs.
Ahmad Khan Rahami was arrested for stabbing a person in the leg and possession of a firearm in 2014. But a grand jury declined to indict him, despite a warning from the arresting officer that Rahami was likely "a danger to himself or others."
The official who spoke to AP insisted on anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
Mohammad Rahami told reporters outside his chicken restaurant in Elizabeth, New Jersey, on Tuesday morning that he called law enforcement twice. He didn't elaborate.
Scratch that, the brother was the one who assaulted the cop.
We have to consider that the jargon and whatever functions cause that jargon may have a chilling effect on common sense
FBI: Welp, guess we can close the book on that one!
Either way, the guy spends the rest of his life in jail.
What did the FBI do to follow up?
Evidently Ahmad Rahami's wife and mother left the country recently as well...
Link - ( New Window )
+1
It was confirmed this morning he wasn't put on a watch list. I'm not sure of everything that goes into monitoring people on a watch list, but this fuck sure as hell should have been on it.
Travel to Afghanistan + assault charges + his own father calling him a terrorist should equal some sort of monitoring or surveillance.
With the massive amount of signals intelligence resources we have in play, you'd think at a bare minimum they'd be monitoring all his communications, his travel, etc.
This one looks like it should have been a home run - traveled to Afghanistan and got married, sudden change in his religious views. It's the California shooter all over again.
Seems like the FBI skipped it because the tip came on the heels of him stabbing his brother and beating up his stepmother. They must have figured the father was seeking revenge and not being honest.
Link - ( New Window )
The FBI tried to check out the father's story, and conducted what officials now describe as an "assessment" of that information. However, investigators found no evidence to prompt a full-scale investigation into the son, and the initial investigation was closed without action, the law enforcement official said.
At the time, the son was being held on an assault charge for stabbing his brother during a domestic dispute, another law enforcement official said.
Link - ( New Window )
Troll away, moron!
I think they could prioritize one whose own parents ratted on him.
Quote:
everyone who might be a terrorist. You'd need millions of agents to do that.
I think they could prioritize one whose own parents ratted on him.
I'm not sure the source of the tip makes it any more worthwhile than other leads.
Resources are limited. Time is limited.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to prevent 100% of a kind of crime before it ever happens?
Frankly, I think the record of the post-9/11 domestic security apparatus is nothing short of remarkable. Under both Bush and Obama.
Isnt the "family in the dark" angle a rebuttal to the "they're complicit for not reporting him" angle?
It would be one thing if they tipped the FBI, and then those incompetent clowns said "Hey, we checked him out and he's clean." Instead, the father went back and said "About that terrorism thing I said? Yeah, I made that up because I was mad at him for hanging around with gangsters" which led to the FBI shrugging their shoulders and closing the investigation.
Cmon man.... What the hell are the parents supposed to do ? Unless they absolutely knew what exactly this kid was up to they couldn't do much of anything.
Everyone has all the answers.
Quote:
shouldn't get a DIME of tax payer money for any security bureau. They have failed us time and time again...
Do you have any idea how hard it is to prevent 100% of a kind of crime before it ever happens?
Frankly, I think the record of the post-9/11 domestic security apparatus is nothing short of remarkable. Under both Bush and Obama.
Absolutely right. 4th largest country and 330 mill people and only a handful a these attacks is remarkable.
She'd been scheduled to fly back to the United States this week, two US officials said.
She's currently in the United Arab Emirates, where she's spoken with US officials, a US official said.
Link - ( New Window )
No, both are illegal. Doesn't mean people aren't selling them, but they're both against the law. One for health reasons, the other for taxation.
and then it looks bad when the cops, or FBI, doesn't connect the dots, when most of the time it's Dad just being pissed off at Jr, or Jr being pissed off at Dad.
and then they all blame society for their failings.
and then it looks bad when the cops, or FBI, doesn't connect the dots, when most of the time it's Dad just being pissed off at Jr, or Jr being pissed off at Dad.
and then they all blame society for their failings.
Everyone who calls the cops on their kids rescinds. Maybe not about terrorism, but about every other fucking thing.
The AP's chief of global security, Danny Spriggs, said Rahami often engaged colleagues in long political discussions, expressing sympathy for the Taliban and disdain for US military action in Afghanistan.
doing otherwise just muddles up the system.
if you think your kid is a threat, a terrorist, a homicidal maniac, a drug dealer...whatever...call
don't call because you want to 'teach him a lesson', scare him, just because you're pissed at him.
don't call if you're going to recant, because then you are part of the problem.
call the cops when you're damn sure there's a problem.
The FBI is a weird beast. It's got many capable people (many of my friends have gone that route), but it also just as easily dismiss some incredibly talented people for the most trivial of reasons from their hiring process. Often they want people who are squeaky clean more so than someone with actual experience in the real world (often coming with some baggages).
Quote:
Should they have rousted the guy periodically so that he knows they're watching him? Should they allocate the time and resources to monitor him for years? Do they even have the right to do this without further grounds than an accusation? Would any of this likely have lead to stopping him?
With the massive amount of signals intelligence resources we have in play, you'd think at a bare minimum they'd be monitoring all his communications, his travel, etc.
This one looks like it should have been a home run - traveled to Afghanistan and got married, sudden change in his religious views. It's the California shooter all over again.
Seems like the FBI skipped it because the tip came on the heels of him stabbing his brother and beating up his stepmother. They must have figured the father was seeking revenge and not being honest.
Yeah...it doesn't work that way. There are limited resources and higher restrictions to conducting any kind of collections (especially of US citizens) than what Snowden ever came out to accuse the US government of. And we definitely don't have some massive SIGINT collection resources, especially when it involves civilians traveling.
Collection of any kind with regards to US persons (doesn't even have to be a citizen) in the US (as long as they aren't agents of foreign powers) is an extremely touchy and often time consuming and resource intensive process. And while the FBI may have ability to do so, it's not really all that robust, hence they have to either have service providers work with them or have to use collection capabilities that are highly scrutinized.
People think that the US government can just put anyone on collect, but there are several hurdles to get over before it's even possible. First being whether there is enough and sufficient justification and information to put that individual on collection. The days of the PATRIOTIC ACT style "all is ok in the name of counterterrorism" has been over for a long time. Not only has the checks and balances become more restrictive, but federal agencies are more apt to not get themselves into trouble by putting forth less than concrete cases for collection. This means that a guy like the one from Orlando or even this asshole most likely weren't high enough priority for the limited time and resources available in the FBI to run everything to ground that get reported. We can always criticize this in hindsight, but at the moments these guys were reported, there may not have been enough compelling information to push this further.
Then we come to the actual capability and resources to continue collection on these individuals as well as translate any communications and analyze the information to develop actionable intelligence for further actions/prosecution. Think about the fact that the FBI as an organization conducting counterterrorism operations and intelligence (as a whole) work is less than 10k or so (and that's a generous number). Add to that the limited number of people in the FBI and other partner agencies who are able to speak the target languages. Now you've severely restricted your ability to do meaningful work in a timely manner. There are potentially hundreds more developed and known cases currently being worked that have more clear connections to overseas terrorist networks and homegrown individuals.
These factors may have led to individuals like this guy and the guy from Orlando having been dropped from consideration. It sucks, but they can only go with what they can prove at the moment to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, it's onto the next guy...and then next...and then next. Not everyone can be "that target," who turns out to be a true threat.
Quote:
In the case of the Orlando shooter, he was on the watch list and under surveillance for some time. Is there something about this individual specifically that would have exempted him from that?
Collection of any kind with regards to US persons (doesn't even have to be a citizen) in the US (as long as they aren't agents of foreign powers) is an extremely touchy and often time consuming and resource intensive process. And while the FBI may have ability to do so, it's not really all that robust, hence they have to either have service providers work with them or have to use collection capabilities that are highly scrutinized.
People think that the US government can just put anyone on collect, but there are several hurdles to get over before it's even possible. First being whether there is enough and sufficient justification and information to put that individual on collection. The days of the PATRIOTIC ACT style "all is ok in the name of counterterrorism" has been over for a long time. Not only has the checks and balances become more restrictive, but federal agencies are more apt to not get themselves into trouble by putting forth less than concrete cases for collection. This means that a guy like the one from Orlando or even this asshole most likely weren't high enough priority for the limited time and resources available in the FBI to run everything to ground that get reported. We can always criticize this in hindsight, but at the moments these guys were reported, there may not have been enough compelling information to push this further.
Then we come to the actual capability and resources to continue collection on these individuals as well as translate any communications and analyze the information to develop actionable intelligence for further actions/prosecution. Think about the fact that the FBI as an organization conducting counterterrorism operations and intelligence (as a whole) work is less than 10k or so (and that's a generous number). Add to that the limited number of people in the FBI and other partner agencies who are able to speak the target languages. Now you've severely restricted your ability to do meaningful work in a timely manner. There are potentially hundreds more developed and known cases currently being worked that have more clear connections to overseas terrorist networks and homegrown individuals.
These factors may have led to individuals like this guy and the guy from Orlando having been dropped from consideration. It sucks, but they can only go with what they can prove at the moment to get the ball rolling. Otherwise, it's onto the next guy...and then next...and then next. Not everyone can be "that target," who turns out to be a true threat.
Link - ( New Window )
Great movie, by the way.