Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
On April 15, 2013, two bombs went off almost simultaneously on Boylston Street during the 117th annual Boston Marathon at 2.49 pm EDT (Gessen, 2015). Three people were killed and over 260 others were wounded, with some of the victims losing their limbs. The security agencies had conducted a thorough screening of the area as a standard procedure given the population that was expected to attend this popular event on Patriots’ Day in Boston. Their searches did not reveal any threat of bomb attacks.
The incident led to a major manhunt for the suspects and on April 18, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to identify the suspects who were involved in this attack. It was noted that the attack was carried out by two Islamic brothers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who felt that the United States actions in Iraq was hurting the Islamic communities in these regions. A section of the local and international community has blamed this attack on intelligence sharing failure. Although it was almost impossible for the security agencies to know about this attack, one of the suspects was already under FBI and CIA records as one of those who had joined radical Islamic groups. In this paper, the researcher seeks to determine if the Boston Marathon Bombing was as a result of intelligence sharing failure among the security agencies.
Purpose of the study
The United States is one of the countries that are often targeted by various terror groups, especially the Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and other parts of the world, because of its stance on leadership in the region. The security agencies in the country have a tough responsibility of gathering intelligence and acting upon it to ensure that terror threats are thwarted before an attack can materialize. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency have the task of gathering intelligence and sharing it with other local authorities with the aim of protecting American citizens and property from potential attack. On April 15, 2013, three Americans lost their lives and over 260 others were seriously wounded on a day that Boston was celebrating Patriots’ Day (Sherman & Wedge, 2015). It meant that in one way or the other, the security agencies failed in their mandate to protect American citizens and their property at such an important event. The purpose of the study is to identify the failure on the part of these security agencies to ensure that such events do not occur again in future. By identifying the weakness, the security agencies would be able to avoid them during similar future events.
Methodology
Boston Marathon Bombing is an issue of public concern, and various media stations reported the matter at various stages after the attack. Cases of misreporting and mistaken identities were common as the entire society worked hard to identify the suspects and to ensure that they are brought to justice. As such, it was important to find an appropriate method of collecting information in this research in a way that would yield the most accurate data possible. Determining whether this bombing was made possible because of intelligence sharing failure requires a valid method of collecting accurate data from reliable sources. The researcher had to collect data from sources which are not in any way biased or misleading because of the sensitivity of the issue. This thorough approach of collecting data was important because the paper may be useful not just among academicians but also among the policy makers in this country who are keen on ensuring that future terror threats are identified and neutralized early enough to avoid casualties.
The researcher relied on peer-reviewed journals to collect data in this paper. Peer-reviewed journals were considered more reliable sources of information because of the number of people involved in verifying the information. Most of these journals were published several months after the incident had occurred. It means that at such time, issues that were not clear had been verified and the weaknesses of the authorities in charge of intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies had been identified.
Congressional reports and reports by other inquiry bodies were also important in providing insights about what happened prior to the attack and what authorities failed to do that made it possible for the terrorist to execute their heinous attack (Konwinski, Singh, & Soto, 2016). Most of these inquiry reports are already available in a number of books and journals. As such, the study also relied on books to gather the needed information for the study. Online video footage of the events and photographs of the attackers as they walked into the place of attack were also important in providing the information about the attack. The report given by those who were present and near the suspects was also viewed. The researcher analyzed the information in order to identify what the authorities did or failed to do that allowed these terrorists to execute their plan.
Main Findings
The Boston Marathon Bombing had grave impact on so many Americans. The family and friends of the three people who were died in the bombing are still in grief following the loss. The 260 people who survived the attack are now battling psychological pain because of this traumatic event (King & Mesar, 2016). Some of them are battling with the physical injuries sustained in the attack. For those who went through amputation, they are still in the process of learning how to lead a life without fundamental parts of their body. There are those who have been condemned to wheelchairs while others have to use assistive equipment in their daily activities. It is for these reasons that it is important to identify the weaknesses of the relevant authorities so that similar situations are not witnessed in the future during similar events which often take place on a yearly basis.
Soon after the attack, House Committee on Homeland Security commissioned an investigation to try and find out the cause of the attack, possible weaknesses within the security and intelligence agencies, and what can be done to ensure that such attacks do not take place in future. In their investigation, it was established that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had made a trip to Dagestan and interacted with extremists. It was established that Federal Security Service of Russia had already contacted Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and informed it of the possible link between Tsarnaev and terrorist in Dagestan (Helman & Russell, 2015). After conducting a brief investigation, the FBI did not find a strong indication that Tsarnaev was involved in any terror activities. The FBI closed the file on this terror suspect and the information was never shared with other intelligence and security agencies. That was in 2011, two years before the attack.
When the Russian FSB realized that the American FBI took no serious action upon the intelligence it shared with them, FSB contacted CIA with the same information. It warned CIA about the dangers that Tsarnaev posed to the public given his links with some terror groups. CIA, just like FBI, placed Tamerlan Tsarnaev in TECS system which meant that his every action would be closely monitored by the security agencies to determine if he was engage in any form of criminal activities. When he left the United States to Russia, the authorities were alerted, but he was not considered a major threat (Holmana, Garfinb, & Silver, 2013). When he came back from Russia, the authorities were unable to detect this activity because his name had been misspelled when he left for Russia. It is worrying that both the CIA and FBI did not share the information about this suspect with local law enforcement agencies, especially the local sheriffs. As such, his activities went unmonitored, which made it possible for him to commit terror crime against Americans. It is, therefore, true that the Boston Marathon Bombing was made possible due to intelligence sharing failure.
Lessons about intelligence sharing
The intelligence and security agencies in the United States have a number of lessons to learn from the Boston Marathon Bombing. One of the most important lessons is that intelligence sharing between intelligence agencies and local security apparatus is very critical. The CIA and FBI should always involve the local sheriffs when monitoring terror suspects. The case study also shows that both the intelligence and law enforcement agencies should treat seriously any information about terrorism.
References
Gessen, M. (2015). Brothers: The road to an American tragedy. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Helman, S., & Russell, J. (2015). Long mile home: Boston under attack, the city’s courageous recovery, and the epic hunt for justice. New York, NY: New American Library.
Holmana, A., Garfinb, R., & Silver, C. (2013). Media’s role in broadcasting acute stress following the Boston Marathon bombings. Science Sessions, 11(1), 93–98. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316265110.
King, D., & Mesar, T. (2016). Surgery during Natural Disasters, Combat, Terrorist Attacks, and Crisis Situations: Lessons Learned from the Boston Marathon Bombing. New York, NY: Springer.
Konwinski, R., Singh, A., & Soto, J. (2016). Imaging of lower extremity trauma from Boston Marathon bombing. Emerg Radiol, 23(5), 433–437. Web.
Sherman, C., & Wedge, D. (2015). Boston strong: A city’s triumph over tragedy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.