No. of Recommendations: 14
How about this: the FBI ran out there and immediately said "THIS WASN'T TERRORISM" even though everybody knew he had an ISIS flag, had IEDs and drove through a crowd.
Yes - there was one lower-ranking FBI spokesperson who got in front of the issue and stated it wasn't terrorism, which was reversed within less than a day as more information came in. Not any institutional effort to classify this as something other than a terrorist institution as a matter of classification.
Would you make any changes to the leadership of the FBI, the DOJ or any of the organs of national security or would you have them continue on the same path they're on now?
Relevant to this incident? Not at this time. We don't have nearly enough information to conclude whether this was a failure to execute directives of leader, a failure in the setting of those directives, or neither and just an instance where even the right policies properly executed to the limits of available resources will still not prevent every catastrophe.
What we know right now is that this guy pledged allegiance to ISIS in videos posted online hours before the attack. From media reports, it looks like only about two hours - 1:39 a.m. when the first video went up. It is exceptionally unlikely that under any system of surveillance of social media that the American people would ever find acceptable that this would result in a law enforcement intervention in that short of a time period. We don't yet know (or at least, I haven't yet seen) whether there were older indications that would have/should have triggered a law enforcement intervention.
