FBI interviewed Boston bombing suspect in 2011: source

WASHINGTON Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:05am EDT

A New York Police officer stands guard at the corner of the New York Stock Exchange in New York April 19, 2013, as part of heightened security in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

A New York Police officer stands guard at the corner of the New York Stock Exchange in New York April 19, 2013, as part of heightened security in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing.

Credit: Reuters/Eduardo Munoz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI interviewed suspected Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in early 2011, it said in a statement late Friday, following a tip from a foreign government that he was "a follower of radical Islam" and was preparing to leave the United States to join underground organizations.

The FBI said its interview two years ago of Tsarnaev and his family, along with checks of travel records, Internet activity and personal associations, "did not find any terrorism activity" at the time.

But the revelation is the first evidence that the Tsarnaev family came to U.S. security officials' attention after they emigrated to the United States about a decade ago, and it could raise questions about whether the government missed potential warning signs about the behavior of two brothers.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, died overnight in Boston in a shootout with police. His younger brother, Dzhokhar, 19, was taken into custody on Friday evening in the Boston suburb of Watertown after a dramatic, day-long manhunt, Boston police said.

The FBI statement did not disclose which foreign government asked it for information about the brothers and their family. But Tamerlan was widely reported to have made a trip to Russia last year.

The brothers and their family were ethnic Chechens, whose small republic's attempts at independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union were brutally crushed by Moscow. Both brothers, however, were born in the Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan, the FBI statement said, and Dzhokhar was a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The revelation that the elder Tsarnaev was on U.S. law enforcement authorities' radar screens seemed likely to raise uncomfortable questions for the Obama administration about whether it could have done anything to detect and stop the plot.

"It's new information to me and it's very disturbing that he's on the FBI radar screen," Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on CNN late Friday.

It is not known when the Boston Marathon bombings were planned, or whether there were clues that could have allowed authorities to pre-empt it.

National security and law enforcement authorities said on earlier Friday that they had not turned up any evidence that the Tsarnaevs had contacts with al Qaeda or other militants overseas.

Rep. Peter King, New York Republican and member of the House intelligence committee, said in a statement that there "was no federal intelligence or chatter prior to the marathon bombings," a reference to militant communications often picked up in advance of an impending attack.

The U.S. officials said they were leaning toward the theory that the bombings were motivated by Islamic extremism, although that remained unproven.

WERE THE TSARNAEVS WORKING WITH OTHERS?

Violent plots involving a single individual or small groups who self-radicalize and have minimal dealings with other militants can be extremely difficult to detect in advance, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials and private experts.

The revelation about the FBI contacts with the elder Tsarnaev came as U.S. officials told Reuters that investigators are scouring government data banks to determine if spy and police agencies missed potential clues that might have alerted them to the two brothers.

Another top priority for investigators is to determine whether the brothers had any confederates either inside the United States or overseas, one U.S. official said. This official and others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Three people were taken into custody for questioning in New Bedford, Massachusetts, police said on Friday. Two men and a woman are being questioned by the FBI "on the assumption there is an affiliation with" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Lieutenant Robert Richard of the New Bedford Police said.

One official said the possibility that the U.S. government had information that should have raised questions about the Tsarnaev brothers before the attack could not be ruled out. Other officials said they were unaware that such material had turned up.

In several recent cases, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies failed to put together clues that, in hindsight, might have led them to pre-empt a plot.

In 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 people and wounded another 32 at Fort Hood, Texas. Prior to the shooting spree, Hassan had email contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born cleric and leader of al Qaida's affiliate in Yemen who was later killed in a U.S. drone strike.

U.S. authorities had investigated Hassan's emails, but concluded they posed no threat of violence.

The father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called "underwear bomber" who tried to bring down a U.S. jetliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, reported suspicions about his son's activities to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria. But Abdulmutallab's U.S. visa was never revoked.

A report by the Senate intelligence committee heavily criticized U.S. intelligence agencies for failing to act on available information in that case.

But Brian Jenkins, a respected terrorism expert at the RAND Corp., dismissed the idea that the Boston bombings represented an intelligence failure.

People will inevitably ask, "did we miss something in intelligence?" said Jenkins, speaking before the news of the 2011 FBI interview with Tamerlan Tsarnaev become public.

"Some people will label it an 'intelligence failure.' But that's because people have come to expect 100 percent security," he said.

(Additional reporting by Patrick Temple-West; Editing by Paul Simao and Stacey Joyce)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
COindependent wrote:
Questioning the intelligence community is a non-starter, as they are trapped between the constitutional rights of individuals and law enforcement. These men and women are committed to our security, but it is unreasonable to expect they can stop all of those who are motivated to do harm.

All we can do is be diligent, otherwise we run the risk of turning this country into a police state–ala China, Iran or the old Soviet Union. The freedom we is enjoy is not risk free–as evidenced by those who will use our constitutional protections to destroy that same constitution.

I sincerely hope that should this individual and any accomplices be convicted that they suffer the same fate as Timothy McVeigh.

Apr 20, 2013 9:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pilgrimson wrote:
I have been revisiting the Kennedy assassination on the upcoming 50th anniversary. One message I get is that law enforcement agencies infiltrate every known hostile organization, whether local agencies or federal agencies. We have seen numerous times how the FBI, for example, aids and abets a plotter with dummy or inoperable weapons, then swoops down and makes an arrest, and gets the publicity for keeping us safe. They always seem to crack the case in the nick of time. Is it true that today’s technology gives the FBI or CIA, what-have-you, totalitarian spying powers, particularly through he internet and wireless communications?

Apr 20, 2013 12:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SKYDRIFTER wrote:
By all accounts, the brothers were/are guilty as sin. BUT, there are too many pertinent ‘interesting’ questions.

The ‘protectiveness’ of the family is understandable – within reason; but why didn’t the FBI quickly recognize the brothers’ faces?

Why did the FBI have to be embarrassed to admit their intimate prior knowledge of at least the older brother? Assuming report accuracy, why didn’t the older brother trigger a red flag with his flight to Moscow; and beyond?

Given the role of the FBI’s involvement with Emad Ali Salem in the collective events of the 1993 WTC bombing; it takes a fool to not look squarely at the FBI in this matter.

In the Boston bombings, the key question (among others)is why the FBI would constructively warn the brothers that they were onto them; by publicly displaying first the collected evidence; then their faces. Barney Feif would be smarter than that.

What happened to the ‘standard’ FBI response: “We don’t comment on matters involving ongoing investigations.” For the moment, at least, too much just doesn’t make sense.

Apr 21, 2013 3:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.