Analysis: 'No Politics' Doesn't Mean 'No Accountability'

Kenshin Okubo/AP

“Who’s playing politics with the Boston bombing?” That question was posed by many journalists, including me, almost immediately after the marathon attack, when a few Washington politicians tried to exploit the tragedy.

Some Republicans said the terrorist strike should raise questions about immigration reform. Certain Democrats said “sequestration” spending cuts (and by inference, the GOP) would hurt Boston’s recovery. It was shameful.

But let’s be clear: “No politics” does not mean “no accountability.” Congress must launch, and the White House must accommodate, a full and fair review of what the U.S. government knew about the two Boston Marathon suspects and what, if anything could have been done to prevent it.

If mistakes were made, admit them – and learn from it.

Early reports suggest there is a dangerous lack of communication between federal agencies, which actually isn’t a surprise. A federal audit in January warned there is a “high risk” that the government’s information-sharing system would not prevent a terror attack, the Boston Globe reports.

We also know that the FBI conducted a preliminary inquiry into Tamerlan Tsarnaev after Russia’s state security warned the bureau in 2011 that he was an increasingly radical Islamist prepared to leave the United States to join terrorist groups in Dagestan. (Tsarnaev, one of two brothers suspected in the Boston attacks, died during a firefight with police.)

FBI agents checked government databases and interviewed Tsarnaev and family members. They concluded he was not a threat. Still, the FBI added Tsarnaev to a government list of suspicious individuals who have not been tied to terrorist groups.

Despite that precaution, the FBI failed to detect his travel to the Dagestan region of Russia for six months in 2012 because his name was misspelled wrong on an airline passenger list, according to reports. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said U.S. authorities knew of his departure, but not of his return.

In the latest wrinkle, the Washington Post reported today that the CIA wanted to have Tsarnaev placed on a high-threat counterterrorism watch list more than a year before the attacks, after Russia warned the intelligence agency about Tsarnaev.

What else don’t we know? Who else knew about Tsarnaev’s radicalization? When did they learn of it? What did they do about it? There are countless other questions that must be answered, just as each step leading to the 9/11 attacks were scrutinized.

The White House is understandably dubious about Republicans’ ability to investigate the attacks fairly. But voters will factor out partisanship, and they will punish Republicans if they overreach (remember Bill Clinton’s impeachment?). Setting aside hyper-partisans, the general public is level-headed.

Americans understand that the FBI and other U.S. agencies field thousands – maybe tens of thousands – of warnings similar to those issued about Tsarnaev.  They don’t expect their government to be perfect. But they will demand it be competent, transparent and accountable.

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Sponsored by One Identity

    One Nation Under Guard: Securing User Identities Across State and Local Government

    In 2016, the government can expect even more sophisticated threats on the horizon, making it all the more imperative that agencies enforce proper identity and access management (IAM) practices. In order to better measure the current state of IAM at the state and local level, Government Business Council (GBC) conducted an in-depth research study of state and local employees.

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    The Next Federal Evolution of Cloud

    This GBC report explains the evolution of cloud computing in federal government, and provides an outlook for the future of the cloud in government IT.

  • Sponsored by LTC Partners, administrators of the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program

    Approaching the Brink of Federal Retirement

    Approximately 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age per day, and a growing number of federal employees are preparing themselves for the next chapter of their lives. Learn how to tackle the challenges that today's workforce faces in laying the groundwork for a smooth and secure retirement.

  • Sponsored by Hewlett Packard Enterprise

    Cyber Defense 101: Arming the Next Generation of Government Employees

    Read this issue brief to learn about the sector's most potent challenges in the new cyber landscape and how government organizations are building a robust, threat-aware infrastructure

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    GBC Issue Brief: Cultivating Digital Services in the Federal Landscape

    Read this GBC issue brief to learn more about the current state of digital services in the government, and how key players are pushing enhancements towards a user-centric approach.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.