Seizing on a thinly sourced New York Post report that police have ID’d a Saudi national as a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings this afternoon, Islamophohbic blogger and activist Pamela Geller is ready to lay the blame. In her take, the alleged suspect becomes a “Jihadi” and there isn’t any doubt in Geller’s mind that he did it.
Now that we know that it really was a jihad, Atlas reader Milan Pavic wrote this email to Seitz-Wald:
Have you already offered your excuses to misses Geller?
Well, you should do so, if you have any decency left.
On the subject of islam and the global jihad she WAS right, she IS right and she will always be right.
Don't blame Geller, blame islam and all the leftist heads full of helium.
The jihadis' stooge Seitz-Wald wrote this back to Milan:
The issue is not that she blamed jihad, it's that she did it before we even knew ANYTHING about the suspects, like who they where [sic]. She blamed jihad when she thought the Saudi national, who has since been completely cleared, did it.
It takes a big man to admit when he was wrong, and Alex Seitz-Wald is a very, very small man. In the first place, the New York Post story turned out to be correct: while the leftist media at first denied that a Saudi national or anyone else was being held at all, eventually they had to admit that a Saudi national was indeed being held. But he was just a "witness," you see. Oh, really? How many "witnesses" get their homes searched, and bags full of evidence removed?
The oddities over the Saudi national's being a "witness" are just a small part of the unanswered questions involved in this story. Alex Seitz-Wald says he has been "completely cleared." Wrong again, Alex. Here is a summary of some of the biggest questions that still remain:
4 Major Questions That Remain About the Saudi National Tagged as 212(a)(3)(b), ‘Terrorist Activities’ The Blaze, Apr. 26, 2013
The bottom line is that I was working from published reports about the Saudi national that proved to be correct. But don't expect a retraction and apology from Alex Seitz-Wald. That might come from a real journalist, but not from a propagandizing tool of the jihad like him.
It’s been nearly a week since Glenn Beck first revealed additional information about Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, the Saudi national briefly considered a person of interest in the Boston Marathon bombing. According to Blaze sources, Alharbi was tagged as a 212(a)(3)(B) — the U.S. immigration designation for “terrorist activities.”
In the last week, TheBlaze has learned (among other things) that Alharbi’s event file was altered last Wednesday, two days after the bombings, and the 212(a)(3)(B) designation was removed; that Alharbi was, in fact, placed on a watch list after the attack; that he was at one time listed as “armed and dangerous”; and that he was not properly vetted before he was allowed into the country under a “special advisory option.”
Despite those revelations, here are four major questions remaining about Alharbi:
1. What was the evidence that triggered the 212(a)(3)(B) filing?
There is nothing automatic about a 212(a)(3)(b) filing. Every piece of information must be manually entered, line by line, and the decision cannot made by any single person or even a “rogue agent.” Simply being on a no-fly list is not enough to trigger a 212(a)(3)(b). One source told TheBlaze that even in one case where the filing was ultimately incorrect, it still took six months to remove.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did not address Alharbi’s 212(a)(3)(b) status during a House hearing this week. She admitted that the Saudi national was temporarily put on a watch list while he was interviewed following the Boston bombings, but added it was quickly determined Alharbi was not involved in the attack. The DHS head did not indicate that any other information was uncovered that identified Alharbi as a potential terror threat.
The question for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is, what did you find that was so damning that you included such a designation in the file? Or is there another explanation for including it?
2. Why was Alharbi not fully vetted upon entering the United States?
Alharbi was admitted to the United States under a “special advisory option,” generally reserved for visiting politicians and diplomats. Who is he that he was permitted entry without a full vetting?
3. Why the continuing secrecy?
If this Alharbi is innocent and this has been one big misunderstanding, why won’t the Department of Homeland Security publicly come forward to clear everything up?
4. Where is Alharbi now?
No one has publicly admitted they know where Alharbi is. Is he still in the United States? Is he back in Saudi Arabia? Where is he now?