This is a gigantic deal. The New York Times, after all, didn’t merely report that Malik had made public Facebook postings about her feelings about jihad; it wrapped that contention into what reads as a condemnation of the U.S. anti-terrorism apparatus. The thrust of the story comes through with trademarked New York Times precision in its lede: “Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad. She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it.” The balanced investigative piece discusses the “shortcomings” in how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) screens foreigners coming into the United States, as Malik did in July 2014 through a K-1 visa, which allows a foreign national fiance(e) to move to the United States to marry. President Obama has ordered a review of K-1 visas.
As Kevin Drum notes, two of the three reporters responsible for this piece were the same ones who broke the non-story that Hilary Clinton was the target of a criminal referral over mishandling classified email. (She wasn’t a target, it wasn’t a criminal referral, and the emails weren’t classified when she saw them. In other words, totally wrong.)
I don’t know about you, but my cash is taking a trip to England to support the Guardian in 2016.