The Concerning Case of Esteban Santiago

I'm not making a judgment call about Esteban Santiago's crime, but as I get more information about his background and this case, I'm going to ask more questions and pose new theories. This isn't an attempt to try him in the court of public opinion, but to get people talking, asking questions and get people out of whatever echo chamber they might be stuck in. I want answers and if people have them, give them to me. I will not bite off, hook, line, and sinker, on the media narrative from the far left, left, right, far right, alt-right, or whatever.

One of the first things released about Esteban Santiago is that he had been directed to get psychological treatment because he told the FBI that he was "hearing voices" that were forcing him to watch ISIS recruitment videos and fight for ISIS. His family also said he was under treatment for mental health disorders. My hypothesis, based on the psychological history revealed is that he may have suffered from some kind of mental or brain trauma. He could be suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, though it’s pretty late for him to be developing symptoms. He could be suffering from PTSD from his time in Iraq. Because there are indications he is experiencing hallucinations along with PTSD-like symptoms, I suspect that one of possibility is brain damage from mefloquine poisoning which is used to inoculate many deploying service personnel from malaria. These are things that should be looked at and from all indications, it will be.

Law enforcement has also not ruled out terrorism. The main reason why terrorism has not been ruled out is because in situations like this, it never is. There is also his contact with the FBI last year. Some media outlets have provided some evidence that he may have expressed interest in Islam up to a decade ago and may even have converted, going by the name Aashiq Hammad. The problem with the evidence is that it is based on some easily manipulated circumstantial evidence from MySpace and hotmail from ten years ago. Is the information interesting? Yes. Does it prove him guilty of Islamic fundamental extremism or self-radicalization? Not hardly. Even though Esteban Santiago's brother is one of his contacts on MySpace, both Esteban and Santiago are fairly common names in the Spanish speaking world, so it could be a case of mistaken identity. On the other hand, one of the many reasons why MySpace lost out to Facebook is because it was too easy to hack and still is, so it could be trolls manipulating the public.

I'm not discounting the MySpace/hotmail evidence, I'm simply saying that there are problems with it that will take computer experts to solve and determine if it is good evidence or not.

I said before, that if Esteban Santiago is found psychologically unfit to stand trial and his actions can be traced to his mental health problems, then I want him to be hospitalized and to get the treatment he needs. It could be that he has been faking his psychological symptoms as part of his planning for this attack, so if he is found to be psychologically fit and had complete understanding of his actions, then I hope he gets the death penalty.

All this still leaves some questions.

There was a domestic violence case pending against Esteban Santiago along with a restraining order. The restraining order alone is enough to prevent him from legally having access to firearms. It is clear, however, that at some point he legally purchased a firearm. I am opposed to firearm databases, so I don’t expect anybody to know that he had a pistol in his possession. The problem is that the FBI took his pistol away when he came to them with his story about hearing voices. When he went to get treatment, the FBI returned the pistol to him. WHAT?!

This also undoes my theory that the firearm was a straw purchase… maybe.

It should also be pointed out that Santiago was already under investigation for domestic violence and had an active restraining order at the time he went to the FBI. If the FBI had done a simple court records check, they would have seen that and hopefully would have known that Esteban Santiago could not legally be in possession of a firearm. So the first question is how and why did the FBI drop the ball so badly?

On the day of Esteban Santiago’s flight from Alaska to Florida, he not only still had the pending domestic violence case pending, but he had also violated the restraining order against him. When he went to the airport, he checked a bag with his properly stored pistol in it. I haven’t flown since 2010, but my wife and my kids all have and every time we go, all checked bags are screened by the TSA. Is there no database of people who are under investigation or have cases pending that prohibit them from having possession of firearms? I mean, even if the firearm is legally owned, I would think the TSA would run a final check before letting a person check a weapon. The Department of Homeland Security officially sucks at the very thing it is supposed to be doing and the Transportation Security Administration has now officially not prevented a single act of terror.

Along with the failure of the FBI, the TSA, and the local law enforcement agencies in Alaska, if it is determined that Esteban Santiago was suffering from some kind of service connected psychological/brain trauma or began to manifest a psychological disorder while he was on active duty, then the Alaska National Guard as will the DoD because the various ANG components are joint activities with the DoD. That’s a pretty big ball to drop.

All of this goes to show that the government cannot protect you. There are laws on the books at the Federal and Alaska local level that prohibit Esteban Santiago from having a firearm and he slipped through the cracks. Because it is legal to transport firearms by checking them when you travel within the United States, many states allow some form of legal carry in airports prior to going through security check-points. That means that in some states, such as my home state of Arizona, that a person can legally go to the airport while carrying a firearm as long as they aren’t traveling. In Florida and in my current state of residence, Virginia, it is illegal to carry a firearm into an airport unless you’re a law enforcement officer, special conservator of the peace on contract site, or licensed armed security on contract site. What that ultimately means is that Esteban Santiago was a wolf let loose in a sheep pen.

I’m not an advocate of people who have never shot a firearm responding to such a situation because the death toll would likely have been higher. However, as a second amendment advocate, I do believe people should arm themselves and train themselves so that they can confidently and ably respond to situations like this. I can point to case after case of a bad guy pulling a gun and getting a couple shots off then a good guy pulls a gun and neutralizes the threat by either disabling or killing the subject, or by distracting the subject so others can retreat to safety.

I can also point to studies done by criminologists who have shown that just the idea that a firearm may be present is a deterrent to crime. If the guy is a mentally disturbed, mentally disabled or a radical, it wouldn’t have made a difference, but if he was lucid during the events that led up to the attack, he could very well have thought twice about the attack if he knew firearms were possibly present. More security or law enforcement presence is the immediate but expensive fix to the problem, but Florida needs to take a closer look at their firearms restrictions for airports. The current laws did not prevent a crime from being committed, it only prevented law abiding citizens from having the right to defend themselves with an equal level of force.

Finally, I will not participate in the racist, Islamophobic narrative that lumps all Muslims and too often, Arabs of all religious affiliations into a single group of people out to destroy the West. I spent too much time in the Middle East and know too many Muslims that I know better. I disagree with Islam from a theological and historical perspective and if someone wants to have that debate I am more than ready and willing, but I will not vilify a whole group of people based on the actions of a minority. In America, radical fundamentalism truly does represent a minority of Islam—a fringe minority.

I am well aware of the statistics regarding the average Muslim beliefs in foreign countries where the enforcement of Sharia are concerned and those things need to be addressed in the countries where it is a problem. Where foreign governments aren’t willing to deal with extremism or are extremists themselves, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. then the international community should encourage the rest of the Muslim world to take the lead in fixing those problems and leading the coalitions against terror groups. If we had taken that approach with Iraq or even Iran back in the 50s, we probably wouldn’t have the problems we have today. Frankly, America needs to promote energy independence in any way it can so we can cut ties with the Middle East altogether, especially Saudi Arabia.