Sen. Cruz Seeks Answers from Obama Administration Regarding Unheeded Red Flags in NY/NJ Bomber Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, questioning the administration’s pattern of ineffectiveness at preventing terror attacks on American soil in light of the recent bombings in New York and New Jersey carried out by Ahmad Khan Rahami.
In the letter, Sen. Cruz identifies multiple red flags in Rahami’s case, similar to past radical Islamic terror attacks, that went unheeded, such as Rahami’s frequent travel to regions with a significant terrorist presence, his marriage to a woman from a known Taliban stronghold, and his father alerting the FBI that Rahami was a “terrorist.”
“Law enforcement, to be sure, will never be able to prevent every conceivable attack. That is an impossible standard,” Sen. Cruz wrote. “But as the facts of this particular case continue to emerge, it is clear that the federal government’s law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies are not as effective as they could be in spotting and monitoring potential terrorists… Perhaps the government’s ideological blinders explain why it found nothing suspicious with Rahami’s repeated trips to an overseas region known for Islamic radicalism, his marriage to a woman from that region, and his growing estrangement from his family in the United States.”
Sen. Cruz’s letter follows an op-ed he penned earlier this week, which can be read here. Read the senator’s letter in its entirety here and below:
September 29, 2016
The Honorable Loretta E. Lynch
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20230
The Honorable Jeh Johnson
Secretary of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
The Honorable James B. Comey
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, DC 20535
Dear Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Johnson, and Director Comey:
The bombing attacks in New York and New Jersey perpetrated by Ahmad Khan Rahami are a stark reminder that radical Islamic terrorism remains a grave threat to the safety and security of Americans. We are fortunate that these bombs did not do more damage. While 29 people were injured, fortunately, none were killed or sustained life-threatening injuries. Of course, Rahami’s ineffectiveness as a bomber should give us no comfort. Although law enforcement was able to swiftly identify and apprehend Rahami through its impressive investigative work, it is not enough to catch terrorists after they strike. We must do better in preventing them from striking in the first place.
Law enforcement, to be sure, will never be able to prevent every conceivable attack. That is an impossible standard. But as the facts of this particular case continue to emerge, it is clear that the federal government’s law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies are not as effective as they could be in spotting and monitoring potential terrorists.
The Rahami case is rife with red flags that went unheeded. It has been reported that Rahami, a naturalized citizen from Afghanistan, frequently traveled to regions with a significant terrorist presence.[1] In 2011, for instance, he spent several weeks in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and Quetta, Pakistan, a notorious Taliban stronghold, where he married a Pakistani woman whom he eventually brought to the United States.[2] On another trip, Rahami spent almost a year—from April 2013 to March 2014—in Pakistan.[3] On each occasion, when he returned to the United States, customs officials subjected him to additional or “secondary” screening but apparently failed to detect his increasing radicalization.[4] Customs officials were sufficiently concerned with his repeated journeys to Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, that they did flag Rahami to the FBI in 2014.[5] That happened to be the same year that Rahami’s father told the FBI that Rahami was a “terrorist” following a violent altercation with his brother.[6] But none of this was apparently enough for the FBI to deem Rahami a sufficient threat to monitor.
It is particularly troubling that these red flags bear a remarkable resemblance to red flags in other cases. For example, one of the Boston bombers—Tamerlan Tsarnaev—had traveled to Dagestan where, the Russians informed us, he may have had contact with terrorist groups.[7] One of the San Bernardino shooters—Syed Rizwan Farook—traveled to Saudi Arabia where he met his future wife and accomplice Tashfeen Malik, whom he brought to the United States.[8] And the Orlando shooter—Omar Mateen—had a history of violence and had even claimed to have ties to terrorists.[9] In each of these cases, like the Rahami case, the FBI was aware of red flags and yet concluded that the individuals did not pose a threat.
Most worrisome of all is that, in some of these cases, the FBI had even interviewed the individuals. Tsarnaev was interviewed at least once.[10] And Mateen was interviewed three times.[11] (Inexplicably, the FBI did not interview Rahami, despite his father’s accusation that he was a terrorist.[12]) Although never interviewed by the FBI, Malik was nevertheless interviewed by government officials on two occasions in relation to her applications for a visa and subsequent permanent resident status.[13] None of these interviews uncovered any indication that the individuals were potential threats, which suggests, perhaps, that the right questions were not asked.
The Government’s failure to understand the significance of the common threads that unite these cases raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s approach to counterterrorism. Instead of acknowledging the ideology that inspires acts of terrorism by radicalized Muslims, the administration has insisted that ideology is irrelevant in identifying potential terrorists and that all terrorists are simply “violent extremists.” That is presumably why this administration has studiously avoided identifying the threat as radical Islamic terrorism—which could also be called “Salafi jihadism”[14]—and instead prefers meaningless bureaucratic jargon like “violent extremism.” But it is dangerously naïve to presume that all types of terrorists are radicalized in the same way—that radical Islamic terrorists, for instance, follow the same path as an anarchist or environmental terrorist. Perhaps the Government’s ideological blinders explain why it found nothing suspicious with Rahami’s repeated trips to an overseas region known for Islamic radicalism, his marriage to a woman from that region, and his growing estrangement from his family in the United States.
To help Congress better understand the nature of the problem, please provide answers to the following questions:
(1) What efforts have been made in the wake of the San Bernardino case to assess the potential that radicalization has occurred or could occur where a U.S. national marries a foreign spouse from a region where radical Islamic terrorism is prevalent?
(2) What are the protocols for “secondary screening” interviews of individuals returning from regions where radical Islamic terrorism is prevalent?
(3) In the “secondary screening” interviews, are customs officials permitted to ask individuals where they travelled and with whom they met? Are customs officials permitted to ask individuals to identify which mosques or schools, including religious schools, they visited?
(4) Do customs officials make any effort to verify or corroborate answers that are given in “secondary screening” interviews?
(5) Given the Tsarnaev precedent, were efforts made to assess Rahami’s potential contact with radical Islamist persons, groups, mosques, or schools while on his travels?
(6) On what basis did the FBI conclude that a direct accusation by Rahami’s father of Rahami’s terrorist inclinations was groundless and not worthy of further monitoring (especially given his violent behavior, his travel to terrorist havens, and his marital history)?
(7) Was Rahami’s case reviewed after the San Bernardino or Orlando attacks?
Please provide the requested information as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 17, 2016. We appreciate your cooperation in this important matter and look forward to your response. If you have any questions, please contact Ryan Newman at (202) 224-5922.
Sincerely,
Ted Cruz
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency
Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts
