It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Dan00
He shouldn't have been "detained" upon any other premise but that he presented with a mental illness.
The problem is, that folks with what he has usually need to present themselves for help, the FBI is not warranted to "detain" someone based on what Esteban presented.
There would have to be a recording somehow of what he presented when he visited the FBI, and some other professional would have had to examine the recording (which could be flagged based on keywords) to determine whether or not help could have been offered to, or compulsory, for poor Steve.
Again, this has nothing to do with vetting immigrants. And just because something is 'wrong' with somebody, does not give the FBI or anyone else the authority to detain them. Being mentally ill is not a crime. Had he done something criminal when he walked into the FBI field office, he would have been arrested.
Cool it, Spartacus.
originally posted by: Dan00
a reply to: 3daysgone
It's not about National Security, it's about the law that protects us all from illegal search and seizure.
You are a good and gentle man/woman. I parse that.
We are all on a journey towards national self-discovery.
In the scheme of things, we haven't been doing "Nationhood" for very long.
Why are we doing this to ourselves?
I would think that should be quite enough to just wonder if this soldier should be released to the public.
originally posted by: 3daysgone
If you mention that they have infiltrated your head by showing you ISIS videos, I would think that should be quite enough to just wonder if this soldier should be released to the public.
originally posted by: 3daysgone
I do understand what you are saying, but he went to them for help.
What exactly do you mean by "quite enough"?
What are you talking about when you say "Released".
There are laws governing this # in America.
We don't detain people because they are "talking crazy"
You get that, right?
That they could not find a reason to think it would be a good idea not to let this person leave.
Detaining for grave disability due to mental illness is a state function, not federal. They can't do anything except suggest he go to the hospital or whatnot.
originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Dan00
Evidence that a person, who has been trained to kill, might be a threat to the civilian population.
That they could not find a reason to think it would be a good idea not to let this person leave.
So you think they should have let him just walk out? Really?
So a guy, with military training, knows how to use weapons very well, talking about our Nation's enemy inside his head, went to the FBI, not the local police department, the freaking FBI, and you will chalk all of that up to just "talking crazy"?
Actually I don't.
originally posted by: 3daysgone
They would have had to prove he was mentally ill first. Yes they can do something. They just didn't.
So the federal law has nothing to do with someone saying ISIS is inside their head? Just chalk it up to crazy talk and be done with it. In hind site, do you agree that was a good idea?
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: 3daysgone
They would have had to prove he was mentally ill first. Yes they can do something. They just didn't.
And they didn't because there isn't any federal law to deal with it, and so they have no authority to detain him for hallucinating.
So the federal law has nothing to do with someone saying ISIS is inside their head? Just chalk it up to crazy talk and be done with it. In hind site, do you agree that was a good idea?
No, federal law has nothing to do with someone hallucinating. It doesn't address mental illness. It's not a crime. Especially, it's not something in a fed's purview. Because it's a state level issue. Feds can't give you traffic tickets, either. Except park rangers, I suppose. An FBI agent can't. Nor DHS, nor an ATF agent. Because they don't enforce traffic law.
So in hind sight, it doesn't matter - they have no authority over that. Are you advocating any LEO at any level should be able to just do what they think? No law, something outside their authority, just do whatever comes to mind. That sounds good to you.
I'm sort of boggling at that. Technically, being a FSO/CSSO, I can enforce federal law outside my facility. You get a neat badge and ID and the whole thing, and they go over some of the high points. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. One, I'm not trained for general law enforcement and I would feel like Paul Blart. But you'd have me out there doing the Judge Dredd thing, enforcing local food ordinances or labor law or issuing traffic tickets or being a game warden or a building inspector because any level of law or code enforcement should be able to just jump right in there and do whatever, including making crap up and arresting people for it. How crazy is that? I'd love to be able to (at times) just do what I felt like any time I felt like it and wave my neat ID around and say 'You're under arrest for general stupidity' but I don't think it would hold up in court.
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: 3daysgone
God! not another CIA cock up!