Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

The CafeMom Newcomers Club The CafeMom Newcomers Club

Boston Bomber was on welfare for years prior to attack

Posted by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM
  • 8 Replies

Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned.

State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter. The state's Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev's attorney has claimed Katherine - who had converted to Islam - was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.

In addition, both of Tsarnaev's parents received benefits, and accused brother bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were recipients through their parents when they were younger, according to the state.

The news raises questions over whether Tsarnaev financed his radicalization on taxpayer money.

Relatives and news reports have indicated that Tamerlan Tsarnaev's descent into extremist Islam began around 2008 or 2009, when the ethnic Chechen met a convert identified only as "Misha," began to become more devout, and sought out jihadist and conspiracy theorist websites, and the rabidly anti-Semitic propaganda tract, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

In 2009, he was quoted in a photo essay as saying, "I don't have a single American friend, I don't understand them," adding that he believed Americans had lost their "values."

His uncle Ruslan Tsarnaev said it was around that time his nephew gave up drinking and was devoting himself to "God's business," while Tamerlan's mother, now wearing a hijab - an Islamic headscarf - began relating conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to her cosmetology clients that she said her son had told her.

In early 2011, Tamerlan Tsarnaev first came to the attention of the FBI when the Russian FSB intelligence service contacted the U.S. agency to warn that he was suspected of being a dangerous radical and sought information.

"The request stated that it was based on information that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country's region to join unspecified underground groups." The FBI reported finding no "terrorism activity."

In mid-2011, he was being monitored by the FSB, apparently prompting the FBI contact, ahead of his six-month trip home to Dagestan in 2012, where Time magazine reported he is believed to have attended a notorious radical mosque.

The state did not say when the Tsarnaevs began receiving benefits. But Health and Human Services spokesman Alec Loftus said the Tsarnaevs "were not receiving transitional assistance benefits at the time of the incident," a reference to the marathon bombing that killed three and injured 260.

Loftus declined to specify what kinds of benefits and the amount of benefits the family received.

Their taxpayer-funded status came to light last night after repeated calls and emails to welfare officials from the Herald. They refused to comment throughout the day, but pressure mounted last night when the Herald started asking lawmakers whether the Department of Transitional Assistance should release the information.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/tamerlan_tsarnaev_got_mass_welfare_benefits 

by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-8):
Fjamrkr
by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 7:07 PM
The thing that really gets me here is it says they were monitoring him in 2011. (I haven't been following the story at all so forgive me if I say something stupid) did they just stop watching him because he wasn't violent fast enough or was someone off getting donuts the day of the bombing? If he was on their radar, why did this even happen?
KellBell0820
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 7:16 PM
At the time they didn't find anything worth monitoring. I feel they dropped the ball and should have continued monitoring regardless.


Quoting Fjamrkr:

The thing that really gets me here is it says they were monitoring him in 2011. (I haven't been following the story at all so forgive me if I say something stupid) did they just stop watching him because he wasn't violent fast enough or was someone off getting donuts the day of the bombing? If he was on their radar, why did this even happen?

angevil53
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 7:19 PM
Maybe he quieted down bc he knew they were watching. It's not like they can watch everyone. And surveillance can only go so far. Regardless this is his cross to bear. No one else did it but him.


Quoting KellBell0820:

At the time they didn't find anything worth monitoring. I feel they dropped the ball and should have continued monitoring regardless.




Quoting Fjamrkr:

The thing that really gets me here is it says they were monitoring him in 2011. (I haven't been following the story at all so forgive me if I say something stupid) did they just stop watching him because he wasn't violent fast enough or was someone off getting donuts the day of the bombing? If he was on their radar, why did this even happen?


Fjamrkr
by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM
That's what it sounds like to me too. I hope someone is answering for this somewhere in the FBI and not just patting themselves on the back for making an arrest. Maybe I'm just too harsh about these things because it really does seem like this was 100% preventable but someone may have just gotten lazy.


Quoting KellBell0820:

At the time they didn't find anything worth monitoring. I feel they dropped the ball and should have continued monitoring regardless.




Quoting Fjamrkr:

The thing that really gets me here is it says they were monitoring him in 2011. (I haven't been following the story at all so forgive me if I say something stupid) did they just stop watching him because he wasn't violent fast enough or was someone off getting donuts the day of the bombing? If he was on their radar, why did this even happen?


KellBell0820
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM
This is true. I just feel that if a foreign government approaches you and says "hey, this guy is one of ours and we think he may be up to something", it might be worth monitoring continuously. But you're right, he's lost his life over it already and his younger brother may very well lose his too.


Quoting angevil53:

Maybe he quieted down bc he knew they were watching. It's not like they can watch everyone. And surveillance can only go so far. Regardless this is his cross to bear. No one else did it but him.




Quoting KellBell0820:

At the time they didn't find anything worth monitoring. I feel they dropped the ball and should have continued monitoring regardless.






Quoting Fjamrkr:

The thing that really gets me here is it says they were monitoring him in 2011. (I haven't been following the story at all so forgive me if I say something stupid) did they just stop watching him because he wasn't violent fast enough or was someone off getting donuts the day of the bombing? If he was on their radar, why did this even happen?



Fjamrkr
by on Apr. 24, 2013 at 7:26 PM
True. I guess I'm just very (I just had the word and suddenly can't think of it) about the whole thing. I've seen little babies being patted down because they were wearing a diaper and elderly incontinent people being expected to fly without bottom perfection because security couldn't say with certainty if they were carrying something or not. Then you hear about things like this and it just confounds me. CYNICAL. That's the word. Maybe I'm just not getting it though?


Quoting angevil53:

Maybe he quieted down bc he knew they were watching. It's not like they can watch everyone. And surveillance can only go so far. Regardless this is his cross to bear. No one else did it but him.




Quoting KellBell0820:

At the time they didn't find anything worth monitoring. I feel they dropped the ball and should have continued monitoring regardless.






Quoting Fjamrkr:

The thing that really gets me here is it says they were monitoring him in 2011. (I haven't been following the story at all so forgive me if I say something stupid) did they just stop watching him because he wasn't violent fast enough or was someone off getting donuts the day of the bombing? If he was on their radar, why did this even happen?



angevil53
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 8:13 PM
For me it's just hard to say it was anyone else's fault. Yes it sucks the lengths some have to go through for the safety of the group but i think if this could have been prevented they would have prevented it. It would've made them look far better. Watching someone for years isn't always conceivable.


Quoting Fjamrkr:

True. I guess I'm just very (I just had the word and suddenly can't think of it) about the whole thing. I've seen little babies being patted down because they were wearing a diaper and elderly incontinent people being expected to fly without bottom perfection because security couldn't say with certainty if they were carrying something or not. Then you hear about things like this and it just confounds me. CYNICAL. That's the word. Maybe I'm just not getting it though?




Quoting angevil53:

Maybe he quieted down bc he knew they were watching. It's not like they can watch everyone. And surveillance can only go so far. Regardless this is his cross to bear. No one else did it but him.






Quoting KellBell0820:

At the time they didn't find anything worth monitoring. I feel they dropped the ball and should have continued monitoring regardless.








Quoting Fjamrkr:

The thing that really gets me here is it says they were monitoring him in 2011. (I haven't been following the story at all so forgive me if I say something stupid) did they just stop watching him because he wasn't violent fast enough or was someone off getting donuts the day of the bombing? If he was on their radar, why did this even happen?




Mommynwife26
by Brianna on Apr. 24, 2013 at 8:15 PM

But Russia stopped communicating with us and stopped giving information so with the govt not finding anything and russia not giving anymore information they had to drop it, they didn't have enough evidence to keep up with a warrent for computer and phone taps.

Quoting KellBell0820:

This is true. I just feel that if a foreign government approaches you and says "hey, this guy is one of ours and we think he may be up to something", it might be worth monitoring continuously. But you're right, he's lost his life over it already and his younger brother may very well lose his too.


Quoting angevil53:

Maybe he quieted down bc he knew they were watching. It's not like they can watch everyone. And surveillance can only go so far. Regardless this is his cross to bear. No one else did it but him.




Quoting KellBell0820:

At the time they didn't find anything worth monitoring. I feel they dropped the ball and should have continued monitoring regardless.






Quoting Fjamrkr:

The thing that really gets me here is it says they were monitoring him in 2011. (I haven't been following the story at all so forgive me if I say something stupid) did they just stop watching him because he wasn't violent fast enough or was someone off getting donuts the day of the bombing? If he was on their radar, why did this even happen?




Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)