The editors of the Washington Post pose two questions about the hostage incident in a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas:
According to The Post’s Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotosky, William Booth and Jennifer Hassan, Mr. Akram has been known to security officials in Britain. The BBC reported that he had been investigated in 2020 by Britain’s counterintelligence and security agency and placed on a watch list as a “subject of interest†before it was concluded that he no longer posed a threat. According to his brother, Mr. Akram had a well-known history of mental health problems and a criminal record. “How was he allowed to get a visa and acquire a gun?†asked the brother.
Good questions. After 9/11, strict security protocols were put in place to screen out people coming to the United States with the aim of doing harm. What were the circumstances of Mr. Akram’s entry through New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport on Dec. 29; was there a human mistake or a failure in the system that needs to addressed? It will be important for authorities to determine whether Mr. Akram acted alone. That it was seemingly so easy for him to acquire a gun — reportedly buying it off the street — underscores once again the complete folly of American gun laws.
Yes, those are good questions. I’d like to know the answers.
And I feel the need to add, although I don’t oppose additional gun control laws and, in particular, would like to see our present laws enforced more strenuously, I think the editors are putting the cart before the horse in their last comments. At this point we don’t know whether the perpetrator had a gun legally or not. Gun control laws by definition only control legal gun ownership. Is there anything that any law can do to prevent illegal gun ownership?
I believe we deserve answers to those questions and many others in particular was the perpetrator’s history already known to the FBI? From what I’m hearing the FBI’s performance in this incident was not nearly as good as they’ve been claiming.
