3 ms·
That doesn't resolve, for me, that they aren't "directly involved" in a "search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity". Were they at the raid?
by tyingq 4y ago
That doesn't resolve, for me, that they aren't "directly involved" in a "search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity". Were they at the raid?
- ceejayoz 4y agoThey can be at the raid. They can't run the raid. I'm sure lines get blurred on this front at times, but the FBI is entirely capable of running a raid on their own; they may be less capable of the "is this the classified document y'all were looking for?" confirmation that needs to come from the Air Force.
- tyingq 4y agoYour example of "is this the classified document" sounds reasonable. That's not how either the headline or article reads, though.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe article doesn't read in either direction; it's not that specific. Quotes like "The FBI had not returned his phone calls, he added" would seem to indicate he's primarily dealing with the FBI, as is proper.
- tyingq 4y ago"Agents from the U.S. Air Force and FBI recently raided homes" "The Air Force Office of Special Investigations and FBI entered homes owned by Joerg Arnu in Las Vegas" "seized potential evidence for an undisclosed joint agency probe" Note, for example, the U.S. Army isn't allowed to do things like direct vehicle traffic around a house that's being raided. Being consulted on the side about specific items to look for, etc, that's much less direct than the quotes above.
- ceejayoz 4y agoNone of those quotes indicate who ran the raid versus who was present. (The Air Force investigators are absolutely allowed to be armed, armored, and enter along with the FBI agents during the raid; no violation there.) I'd also be cautious assuming journalists are carefully parsing their wording specifically to avoid confusion about somewhat obscure aspects of federal law.