Tashfeen Malik Was Already Radicalized; May Have Falsified Information on Her Visa Application

Mueller_comey_obama_september_2013In yet another blow to the credibility of the government’s “rigorous” national security vetting process, FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that Tashfeen Malik, who would later join her husband in killing 14 people in San Bernardino, was already radicalized before being granted entry to the United States under a K-1 fiancée visa.

“These two killers were radicalized for quite a long time,” Comey said. “Our investigation to date shows that they were radicalized before they started courting or dating each other online, and as early as the end of 2013, were talking to each other about jihad and martyrdom before they became engaged and married and were living in the U.S.”

The FBI director’s revelation comes amid reports that Malik also gave incorrect address information on her K-1 visa application, possibly in an effort to conceal ties to jihadist elements in the north-central province of Punjab in Pakistan.

“This is yet another example of the failure of the screening process for those entering the United States,” said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Our government apparently didn’t catch the false address in Pakistan she listed on her application or other possible signs that she was radicalized or an operative.”

If Malik talked about jihad for years and lied on her visa application without raising any red flags, then it is clear that the current national security vetting process cannot be trusted to detect individuals who pose a threat to the American public. Nevertheless, the “rigorous” vetting process that allowed Malik entry is the same kind of process that will be used to vet tens of thousands of Syrian refugees the Obama administration is seeking to resettle throughout the U.S.

About Author



  1. avatar

    From an article early this year by Eamonn Fingleton: “Why Barbaric ‘Jihadi John’ Comes From London, Not Tokyo Or Seoul“

    –“The big news this morning is that “Jihadi John” has been identified. According to the Washington Post, the barbaric executioner who has featured in several ISIS beheading videos is Mohammed Emwazi. Born in Kuwait, he is a British citizen who grew up in a well-to-do family in London and earned a British degree in computer programming.”

    “For anyone who understands how the world works there is a parable here: it is hard to imagine any Japanese or Korean citizen ending up as ISIS’s Lord High Executioner. Both Japan and Korea have worked with extreme diligence to minimize the number of foreigners in their midst and their proportion of Muslims is vanishingly small.”

    –“One thing is for sure: for better or worse, East Asia has no plans to join the West in opening up to more liberal immigration policies.”

  2. avatar

    Judging by the recent terrorist killings the vetting process for immigrants is woefully inadequate. All immigration should stop until a review and corrective measures are taken. A background investigation must be able to be performed, and not just answering questions on a form. If a complete absence of information makes it impossible, the immigrants ineligibility must be blamed on the country of origin. The US is not desperate for immigrants, quite the contrary. We do not need or want millions of unvetted, unskilled, and penniless immigrant from an increasingly overpopulated world. We are under no obligation to accept them.

  3. avatar

    The term “radicalized” is clearly an Orwellian term.

    It suggests that the subject of being “radicalized” was a good, civilized individual while there is absolutely no evidence for that. What if she were born with a barbaric nature that her supposedly civilized upbringing did not quite erase?

    Are we supposed to believe in this unproven fiction that all those evil individuals were naturally good and well-meaning people that some mythical radicals “radicalized”?

    They are the perpetrators and on the victims of any “radicalization”.

  4. avatar
    Denise Persons on

    Pres. Clinton when testifying about his relationship with Monica Lewinski once said, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” So regarding Obama’s “rigorous” national security vetting process…..
    all we need is to have Pres. Obama testify on what his definition of the word “rigorous” is. It might explain why our Country continues to remain unprotected from terrorism.

  5. avatar

    If our government keeps bringing all of these people in who have been radicalized, or are susceptible to being radicalized, as time goes on we will become more and more like Israel where terrorist attacks become a regularly occurring part of life.

      • avatar
        BeResponsible2 on

        “No Change” don’t be troll. Obama wags his pen and finger by by creating illegal E.O./memos “By Direction” forces federal agencies to ignore the immigration investigative process /laws.

        Obamas policies = 2 San Bernardino shooters and 2 Boston Bombers that caused death and maiming upon U.S. Citizens.

        Then without skipping a beat, after every act of terrorism we are told by Obama or one or more of his minions, ” We should not judge all muslims based on the actions of a few.”… But then Obama attacks the 80 million gun owners in America for the action of a few Q: Isn’t it time we the people get the same treatment?

        • avatar

          it’s a fact that any examiner who rejects too many visa applications gets in trouble. Never mind whether the examiner is right or wrong.

  6. avatar

    Everyone seems to be ignoring a looming terrorist pathway involving Visa marriage fraud loopholes in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Many foreign spouses are expediting their green card status by falsely accusing their American spouse of crimes. An immigrant spouse simply files a claim with USCIS justified with absurd reasons such as “name calling” and sketchy evidence. No witnesses or face to face hearing is required. VAWA unfairly denies the American spouse an opportunity to present a defense to the USCIS when an immigrant alleges abuse. This scam makes it easy for an immigrant to abuse the system undetected with confidentiality protections- a National Security vulnerability.

  7. avatar

    Since she gave a false address and that caused no red flags, that means there was absolutely no checking of this woman. And this was in a place where it was easy to check. There is absolutely NO way that the vast majority of the Syrian refugees will be subject to ANY serious checking, because the records will not exist. It will be their word alone that is accepted. This by the way has a connection to the 1986 amnesty in this country, because it was later proven in studies [one by the Ford foundation] that more than one quarter of those given amnesty were lying on the applications, which were simply rubberstamped by the activist groups supposedly doing the checking.

    • avatar

      Since Trump First Brought This Issue to the Limelight a Couple Days Ago

      Its funny how CNN condemns him while simultaneously questioning the security vetting of ISIS by the FBI…..next CNN will take credit for Trump’s idea. The GOP plays the Trump copy cat game and tries to take credit too, while condemning Trump.