• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Navy was warned that Washington shooter 'heard voices'

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I just don't know what to say about this except WTF????

" Rhode Island police warned the U.S. Navy last month that Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis had reported "hearing voices," raising further questions about how he gained security clearance at the complex where he went on a shooting rampage."

U.S. Navy was warned that Washington shooter 'heard voices' | Reuters
 
I just don't know what to say about this except WTF????

" Rhode Island police warned the U.S. Navy last month that Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis had reported "hearing voices," raising further questions about how he gained security clearance at the complex where he went on a shooting rampage."

U.S. Navy was warned that Washington shooter 'heard voices' | Reuters

Makes you wonder what "medication" he was prescribed to deal with it. I think a review of the prescription history of all the shooters should be studied. There seems to be some anomalies as relates to "psychotropic" drugs. I'm medically ignorant, but have read some about this. I've known many Vets on many drugs and sometimes the drugs make them goofy. Many of these shooters seem to be under psychiatric care and still teeing off. Seems like the system might be a bit askew, don't you think?
 
I just don't know what to say about this except WTF????

" Rhode Island police warned the U.S. Navy last month that Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis had reported "hearing voices," raising further questions about how he gained security clearance at the complex where he went on a shooting rampage."

U.S. Navy was warned that Washington shooter 'heard voices' | Reuters

This probably happened for the same reason this happened (from the article):

A Defense Department Inspector General's report published on Tuesday revealed security lapses that allowed 52 convicted felons to gain access to Navy facilities because budget cuts had undermined vetting.
 
This probably happened for the same reason this happened (from the article):

And then there is this, I still have no comment except WTF???????????



"Meanwhile, the U.S. capital paused to remember the victims, aged 46 to 73, who included retirees, parents and a bird lover.

Police in Newport, Rhode Island, were so concerned about Alexis' behavior on a business trip there in August that they alerted Navy police.

Alexis told police he believed people were following him and "sending vibrations into his body," according to a Newport police report.

He told police that he had twice moved hotels to avoid the noise he heard coming through the floor and the ceiling of his rooms, and that the people following him were using "some sort of microwave machine" to prevent him from sleeping.

"Based on the naval base implications and the claim that the involved subject, one (Aaron Alexis) was 'hearing voices,' I made contact with the on-duty Naval Station police," a Newport police officer wrote, adding that he faxed his report of the incident to Navy police.

The Newport police report said Navy police had promised to check if Alexis was in fact a naval base contractor.

Asked for comment, a spokesman said the Navy was looking into the matter, without confirming any details.
 
Yeah.

Like I said.

Cue vilification of the mentally ill -- never mind that out understanding of mental illness is as subpar as our mental health system.
 
I just don't know what to say about this except WTF????

" Rhode Island police warned the U.S. Navy last month that Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis had reported "hearing voices," raising further questions about how he gained security clearance at the complex where he went on a shooting rampage."

U.S. Navy was warned that Washington shooter 'heard voices' | Reuters

If a copper thinks a situation is serious enough to report it to Naval security, the person involved should be put on administrative leave until an investigation re-vets him. Cops don't do this lightly, in my opinion. If he's willing to put it in writing? He means it.
 
Yeah.

Like I said.

Cue vilification of the mentally ill -- never mind that out understanding of mental illness is as subpar as our mental health system.

It seems this tragedy could and should have been averted. There should be an investigation of who exactly received this info from the police and what they did with it. Unfortunately this will be another Benghazi, nobody will be held responsible.
 
If a copper thinks a situation is serious enough to report it to Naval security, the person involved should be put on administrative leave until an investigation re-vets him. Cops don't do this lightly, in my opinion. If he's willing to put it in writing? He means it.

It's the words of a layman being interpreted by another layman. Maybe the recipient of the notification was an idiot, or maybe he was over-worked, or maybe this was a failure in the chain of command, or maybe he tracked down and contacted whomever was treating this man who in turn said the man represented no threat.

We will probably never know what really happened. All I'm certain of is that this will be yet another opportunity for the media to sensationalize mental illness.
 
It's the words of a layman being interpreted by another layman. Maybe the recipient of the notification was an idiot, or maybe he was over-worked, or maybe this was a failure in the chain of command, or maybe he tracked down and contacted whomever was treating this man who in turn said the man represented no threat.

We will probably never know what really happened. All I'm certain of is that this will be yet another opportunity for the media to sensationalize mental illness.

Well, I don't think it's sensationalizing mental illness. I think it's shining a very bright light on security clearances and the way people are vetted. If we refuse to learn a damned thing from these instances, they will happen over and over again. You find a loophole? A shortcoming? You fix it. Sure works in MY life.
 
The thing is, even if he didn't have access don't you think he'd just go somewhere else and do it? I am not saying this is excusable, I just think if it wasn't there it could have been somewhere else.
 
Well, I don't think it's sensationalizing mental illness. I think it's shining a very bright light on security clearances and the way people are vetted. If we refuse to learn a damned thing from these instances, they will happen over and over again. You find a loophole? A shortcoming? You fix it. Sure works in MY life.

It sensationalizes mental illness all the freaking time. Why do you think New York has the SAFE act, and why do you think similar laws are popping up in all the wrong committees around the nation? People are afraid of mental illness, because they're constantly told over and over and over that mental illness = homicidal maniac.

The media can't possibly be shining a very bright light on any damn thing because we don't know anything useful yet. When we do, then that'll be a different story. Until then, we're being fed fragments and conjecture and nothing more.
 
The thing is, even if he didn't have access don't you think he'd just go somewhere else and do it? I am not saying this is excusable, I just think if it wasn't there it could have been somewhere else.

We don't know whether that's true or not. And I think it's a mistaken assumption to make. To say, in essence, "There's nothing we can do to prevent this," is dangerous.
 
It sensationalizes mental illness all the freaking time. Why do you think New York has the SAFE act, and why do you think similar laws are popping up in all the wrong committees around the nation? People are afraid of mental illness, because they're constantly told over and over and over that mental illness = homicidal maniac.

The media can't possibly be shining a very bright light on any damn thing because we don't know anything useful yet. When we do, then that'll be a different story. Until then, we're being fed fragments and conjecture and nothing more.

I was operating under the premise that a police officer had reported to the ship yard's security that this man was acting irrational . . . hearing voices . . . thought people were following him. If that's not true, then, of COURSE, you're right. That's a different kettle of fish -- in fact, without that? It's no kettle of fish at all.

I don't think people figure mental illness = homicidal maniac at all. But I do think that someone hearing voices who thinks he's being followed shouldn't be allowed on a secured military installation. *shrug*
 
We don't know whether that's true or not. And I think it's a mistaken assumption to make. To say, in essence, "There's nothing we can do to prevent this," is dangerous.


There is much that can be done but I don't think taking away someone access is a way to prevent it. He needed help and was ignored. Do you really think if he tried to get in and was denied would say oh well and go home with his guns?
 
I was operating under the premise that a police officer had reported to the ship yard's security that this man was acting irrational . . . hearing voices . . . thought people were following him. If that's not true, then, of COURSE, you're right. That's a different kettle of fish -- in fact, without that? It's no kettle of fish at all.

My point is that we know so little useful information about this guy, about his condition, about what care he was or was not receiving, about who was notified when in regards to what -- but throw the specter of mental illness out there, and suddenly that's the story. Like I said, sensationalism. I'm not saying that the dude wasn't ill or that his illness wasn't the cause of his actions, I'm pointing to how even though we know next to no relevant facts, the mention of mental illness has the media flipping out.

I don't think people figure mental illness = homicidal maniac at all. But I do think that someone hearing voices who thinks he's being followed shouldn't be allowed on a secured military installation. *shrug*

Look at the vast majority of representations of mental illness in our entertainment, look at the SAFE act. People generally see mental illness as yet another boogeyman -- because they're told over and over that it is.
 
There is much that can be done but I don't think taking away someone access is a way to prevent it. He needed help and was ignored. Do you really think if he tried to get in and was denied would say oh well and go home with his guns?

I think you address one issue at a time. The fact that this guy retained his security clearance with the info received from the police is the issue here. If he had been stopped from this crime and went on to a shopping center instead we could try to figure out how that happened but at least a military base with a high level of security would not have been breeched. I honestly can't believe this slipped through the cracks here and heads need to roll. If this guy can do what he did imagine what a terrorist could do. This base is the heart of the navy and this lapse of security is astonishing and an invitation to terrorist.
 
I think you address one issue at a time. The fact that this guy retained his security clearance with the info received from the police is the issue here. If he had been stopped from this crime and went on to a shopping center instead we could try to figure out how that happened but at least a military base with a high level of security would not have been breeched. I honestly can't believe this slipped through the cracks here and heads need to roll. If this guy can do what he did imagine what a terrorist could do. This base is the heart of the navy and this lapse of security is astonishing and an invitation to terrorist.

Well, seeing as how we're speculating with virtually no information, I'll throw out Occam's Razor: He already had clearance, then the police officer reported him, the report was either not very convincing or was made to a low-level guy or both, it was working its way up the chain and through the proper channels, the shooter beat the system to the punch.
 
If a copper thinks a situation is serious enough to report it to Naval security, the person involved should be put on administrative leave until an investigation re-vets him. Cops don't do this lightly, in my opinion. If he's willing to put it in writing? He means it.

Unless there is fear of 'racial profiling', which arresting a man only for suspicious behavior might be the case. Apparently there were many people who said he was just a nice friendly guy.
 
Well, seeing as how we're speculating with virtually no information, I'll throw out Occam's Razor: He already had clearance, then the police officer reported him, the report was either not very convincing or was made to a low-level guy or both, it was working its way up the chain and through the proper channels, the shooter beat the system to the punch.

The guy had a history of irrational behavior and shooting incidents so he never should have gotten security clearance anyway or if he did he should have been on a list that made any new info on him set off alarms. Something is very broken in our security system.
 
I think you address one issue at a time. The fact that this guy retained his security clearance with the info received from the police is the issue here. If he had been stopped from this crime and went on to a shopping center instead we could try to figure out how that happened but at least a military base with a high level of security would not have been breeched. I honestly can't believe this slipped through the cracks here and heads need to roll. If this guy can do what he did imagine what a terrorist could do. This base is the heart of the navy and this lapse of security is astonishing and an invitation to terrorist.

Good points.
 
The guy had a history of irrational behavior and shooting incidents so he never should have gotten security clearance anyway or if he did he should have been on a list that made any new info on him set off alarms. Something is very broken in our security system.

Which leads us back to this:

A Defense Department Inspector General's report published on Tuesday revealed security lapses that allowed 52 convicted felons to gain access to Navy facilities because budget cuts had undermined vetting.
 
I think you address one issue at a time. The fact that this guy retained his security clearance with the info received from the police is the issue here. If he had been stopped from this crime and went on to a shopping center instead we could try to figure out how that happened but at least a military base with a high level of security would not have been breeched. I honestly can't believe this slipped through the cracks here and heads need to roll. If this guy can do what he did imagine what a terrorist could do. This base is the heart of the navy and this lapse of security is astonishing and an invitation to terrorist.

There appears to be similarities here between this case and that of Nidal Hasan. Everyone saw the possible dangers but underestimated them and hoped someone else might do something about it. Who really has the authority to haul this guy in for saying crazy things? In another way it is like the Kitty Genovese case also where people are just afraid to act first.

We are all wiser after the fact and no doubt those who could have done something but didn't will be haunted by their inaction for the rest of their lives. Maybe we will learn from this, but probably not.
 
Which leads us back to this:A Defense Department Inspector General's report published on Tuesday revealed security lapses that allowed 52 convicted felons to gain access to Navy facilities because budget cuts had undermined vetting.

How could there have been such drastic budget cuts that they couldn't vet an employee in such a sensitive area? Certainly they might have looked at cutting in other areas first. This appears to be a rather poor excuse.
 
I think you address one issue at a time. The fact that this guy retained his security clearance with the info received from the police is the issue here. If he had been stopped from this crime and went on to a shopping center instead we could try to figure out how that happened but at least a military base with a high level of security would not have been breeched. I honestly can't believe this slipped through the cracks here and heads need to roll. If this guy can do what he did imagine what a terrorist could do. This base is the heart of the navy and this lapse of security is astonishing and an invitation to terrorist.

Years ago when you were vetted for secret clearance or above, it was conducted by the FBI. There were background checks visits to family, friends and neighbors by the FBI. After I was discharged I ran into a friend of my parents who asked me how I was doing, yada yada yada. They mentioned that the FBI visited them after I had enlisted and asked them questions about me.

On one occasion I know for a fact that a guy lost his clearance and had to retrain. He was Hawaiian, but his father had been born in Japan. That fact when discovered blew this guy's clearance.

These days when every damn thing is classified more people need clearance. I doubt the FBI does the vetting they used to do.
 
How could there have been such drastic budget cuts that they couldn't vet an employee in such a sensitive area? Certainly they might have looked at cutting in other areas first. This appears to be a rather poor excuse.

Well, if background checks cost money and you don't have the money to pay, you're not doing the background checks. It doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Maybe a better question would be who decides what the budget for background checks is -- the military or Congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom