F.B.I. Did Not Tell Police in Boston of Russian Tip
Last edited Fri May 10, 2013, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: NY Times
The F.B.I. did not tell the Boston police about the 2011 warning from Russia about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon bombings, the citys police chief said Thursday during the first public Congressional hearing on the terrorist attack.
Bostons police commissioner, Edward Davis, said that though some of his officers worked with the F.B.I. on a Joint Terrorism Task Force, they did not know about the Russian tip or the bureaus subsequent inquiry, which involved an interview with Mr. Tsarnaev and his parents.
Had his department learned about the tip, in which Russian officials said that Mr. Tsarnaev had embraced radical Islam and intended to travel to Russia to connect with underground groups, we would certainly look at the individual, Commissioner Davis told the House Homeland Security Committee. He noted that F.B.I. officers found no evidence of a crime and closed the case. He said that he could not say whether he would have reached a different conclusion, but that his officers would absolutely have taken a second look at Mr. Tsarnaev.
Commissioner Davis said he recognized the sensitivity of intelligence received from other countries. But when information is out there that affects the safety of my community, I need to know that, he said.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/boston-police-werent-told-fbi-got-warning-on-tsarnaev.html
Boston Globe: "Boston Police not warned of bomb suspect, chief says"
Roland99
(53,342 posts)or something....
olddad56
(5,732 posts)just parroting the typical rwingnut
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)former9thward
(31,997 posts)Almost every major city has joint terrorism task forces with federal agents and city police.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Black Hat lived in Cambridge.
But I'll bet they didn't tell the Cambridge PD, either.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)You mean, the President isn't going to stonewall for over a year, and then have to be shamed by the survivors into finally allowing one ... and then when it happens, he's not going to insist on deciding what the 'valid avenues of investigation' are? And he's not going to insist that his family bagmen are in charge of the investigation?
I bet if Congress were to ask him to testify, he wouldn't insist it be done in secret, with Biden there to hold his hand, either.
What a refreshing change it is to have a real President, instead of a Pretzeldunce.
This sort of 'lack of sharing' is what happens when you decide to categorize the whole idea of 'terrorism' as some sort of entirely separate issue from regular crime. When you 'militarize' and 'federalize' a particular type of crime, you invite this sort of thing, frankly. These federal agencies have their little fiefdoms, and they want to protect their budgets through having a 'unique role' in the scheme of things, and hence they protect 'their own' intelligence.
It's also possible that somehow it wouldn't have been 'legal' for the FBI to tell the police chief what they'd learned, probably via some sort of technicality involving intel that originates from overseas ...
Either way, it's nice of the 'drive by media' to publish this little hit-piece without even bothering to determine WHY (or if they did, they aren't telling) the information wasn't shared. Nice job guys.
One thing we can be 100% sure of ... the wingnutosphere will soon explode will outrage over this revelation ... be shocked if it's not already the headline on teh Drudge Report ...
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)One-hundred percent surveillance isn't possible. Hindsight is 20-20, but you do the best you can in the present,