Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Afghan Evacuee Added to CIS National Security Vetting Failures Database

Published

8 minute read

Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi displaying a pro-ISIS hand gesture common among ISIS militants. He posted this photo on a Tik Tok account while in Oklahoma, resulting in an account ban. Photo courtesy of an FBI complaint filed as part of his criminal court case.

From the Center for Immigration Studies

By Todd Bensman

Former CIA guard is charged with terrorism; assurances that he was vetted turn out to be untrue

An Afghan evacuee from the August 2021 fall of Kabul who stands charged with multiple terrorism offenses that include a mass-casualty firearms attack plot is the latest addition to the Center for Immigration Studies National Security Vetting Failures Database, bringing the total number of cases to 49.

In March 2023, the Center published the database collection to draw “remedial attention” to ongoing government vetting failures lest they “drift from the public mind and interest of lawmakers, oversight committee members, media, and homeland security practitioners who would otherwise feel compelled to demand process reforms”, according to an explanatory Center report titled “Learning from our Mistakes”.

The latest addition is Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, who worked in Afghanistan as an outside guard for a Central Intelligence Agency facility and was authorized for air evacuation from a third country a month after the August 2021 fall of Kabul to Dallas, Texas, on a hastily approved humanitarian parole.

He was among nearly 100,000 mostly Afghan evacuees, of whom about 77,000 were initially admitted into the United States via humanitarian parole through a program called Operation Allies Welcome. All became eligible for more permanent Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) mainly intended to protect Afghans who collaborated with U.S. military operations from reprisals by the Taliban group that seized control of the country.

After arriving in the United States on September 9, 2021, on humanitarian parole, Tawhedi settled with his wife and infant near Oklahoma City on an SIV. He initially worked as a Lyft driver in Dallas and later as an auto mechanic in Oklahoma.

Some 37 months after arriving, in October 2024, the FBI arrested the 27-year-old Tawhedi and a juvenile co-conspirator — Tawhedi’s brother-in-law — for an alleged plot to conduct an Election Day terrorist firearms attack in the United States on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization still active in Afghanistan. The unidentified co-conspirator, an Afghan, entered the United States in 2018 also on an SIV, but little else is known about his vetting processes.

Their plot involved liquidating a house and personal assets to fund the repatriation of Tawhedi’s wife and child to Afghanistan and weapons necessary for him and the juvenile to conduct a mass-casualty attack during which they would be killed, a criminal complaint alleged. The pair obtained semi-automatic rifles and ammunition for the attack, although by then FBI undercover agents had penetrated the plot.

Shortly after the arrests, U.S. government officials claimed that Tawhedi was “thoroughly” vetted three times: first to work for the CIA in Afghanistan, then “recurrently” by DHS for the humanitarian parole status allowing him to fly into the United States, and then for the Special Immigrant Visa once he was settled, probably sometime in 2022.

No red flags turned up, they asserted, without providing evidence.

“Afghan evacuees who sought to enter the United States were subject to multilayered screening and vetting against intelligence, law enforcement and counterterrorism information. If new information emerges after arrival, appropriate action is taken,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox News Digital in October 2024.

But within weeks of making those assertions, U.S. officials reversed course and acknowledged that Tawhedi did not undergo the previously claimed vetting. The State Department, in fact, never vetted or approved Tawhedi, nor had he been very thoroughly vetted for his CIA guard post job in Afghanistan, they said. DHS did not “thoroughly” vet Tawhedi for humanitarian parole on a recurring basis as initially claimed about all Afghan evacuees, either, before allowing him to fly from the unknown third country into the United States.

The screening process for Afghan evacuees in the program includes probing for any possible ties to terrorism, ISIS, or the Taliban using databases the U.S. compiled over 20 years in Afghanistan that include data from applicant electronic devices, biometrics, and other sources.

It’s unclear when Tawhedin radicalized in ways that might have been detected. U.S. officials initially told U.S. media they believed that happened only after he was admitted into the United States. In court records, the FBI says Tawhedi’s initial crime — sending $540 in cryptocurrency to ISIS — occurred in March 2024. But his ties and extremist proclivities almost certainly predated the currency transfer.

Had Tawhedi been thoroughly vetting when he was supposed to be, red flags were more likely than not available to be found both before and after he arrived in the U.S.

For instance, adjudicators might have found pre-existing extremist ideological proclivities within Tawhedi’s immediate family because two brothers evacuated to France also were arrested in September 2024 for a terrorism plot there to attack a French soccer match or shopping center, according to numerous media accounts and information that surfaced during an October 2024 Oklahoma City federal court hearing. (The French and Americans collaborated on both cases).

Furthermore, court records reveal that Tawhedi maintained relationships with well-known ISIS figures that were sufficiently trusting to have enabled direct communications with them by phone and on encrypted apps.

In fact, Tawhedi trusted these operatives to care for his repatriated wife and child after he was killed in the U.S. attack and to gift substantial remaining funds from the sale of the Oklahoma house. Lastly, an FBI investigator in the October 2024 court complaint indicated that most extended family members in Tawhedi’s Oklahoma circle were aware of the plot, approved, and could still be charged as co-conspirators as of that time.

The fact that many family members in the U.S. and abroad felt this way about Tawhedi’s plans further indicates that their extremism pre-dated U.S. entry and might have red-flagged during face-to-face interviews, database checks, and other standard security vetting practices.

Underscoring the admitted Tawhedi vetting failure, a September 2022 DHS Office of Inspector General report found, in part, that U.S. Customs and Border Protection “admitted or paroled evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States” and that, “As a result, DHS may have admitted or paroled individuals into the United States who pose a risk to national security and the safety of local communities.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Crime

U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

President Trump revealed Wednesday afternoon that U.S. authorities intercepted a Cuba-bound oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, a dramatic move aimed at tightening the squeeze on illicit oil networks operating throughout the region. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump described the vessel as “a very large tanker — the largest one ever seized in action,” hinting that more developments are coming. He declined to get into specifics, saying only that the operation happened “for a very good reason.” When asked about the tanker’s crude, Trump didn’t overcomplicate it. “Well, we keep it, I guess,” he said.

According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the seizure was executed by the Coast Guard with support from the U.S. Navy after a federal judge green-lit the warrant roughly two weeks ago. Another official told the New York Times the ship — identified as the Skipper — had been sailing under a falsified flag and has a documented history of trafficking illicit Iranian oil. The vessel, although carrying Venezuelan crude at the time, was seized because of those Iranian smuggling ties, not because of any direct connection to Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

Vanguard, a UK-based maritime risk firm, confirmed Wednesday that the Skipper fits the profile of a tanker previously sanctioned by the United States for operating under the alias Adisa while moving banned Iranian oil. A source speaking to Politico said the ship was on its way to Cuba, where state-run Cubametales intended to flip the cargo to Asian brokers — an increasingly common workaround as U.S. sanctions isolate both Havana and Caracas from traditional buyers. With most Venezuelan product now flowing to China under the sanctions regime, oil traders began recalibrating almost immediately after the news broke. Prices ticked upward modestly as markets waited to learn whether any Venezuelan crude was on board and how much would be effectively taken off the table.

Maduro, for his part, avoided directly mentioning the seizure during a speech later Wednesday, instead railing against the United States and claiming Venezuela’s military stands ready “to break the teeth of the North American empire, if necessary.” His bluster did little to obscure the reality: the Trump administration just disrupted yet another shadowy oil operation linking Caracas, Havana, and Tehran — and sent a clear signal that these networks will be confronted, tanker by tanker.

Continue Reading

Trending

X