My argument is that her panic attacks, when coupled with her other statements, indicate an unwell person, which undermines her credibility with regard to the seriousness of what the FBI agents are said to have done.
According to you, the FBI should have known she was unwell and treated her as such, which I can understand. Having never actually talked to her or even been aware that she was having panic attacks or other mental issues as a result of their inquiries, I fail to see how you would expect the FBI agents to do that, however.
As I said in another post, the FBI is well aware of the stress induced - to the point that they have given it a name when turned to their advantage: "bumper lock". If any of that comes as a surprise to you, and you'd like to know more, look into the interview techniques that LEOs employ. I've got formal training in Wicklander (which is very popular with law enforcement), inducing stress is a big part of the process. So they can't really claim ignorance, and even if they could it would not be defense (again, eggshell skull).
For those that don't know, "Bumper Lock" is following someone without being secretive about it, meant to induce stress.
This isn't "bumper lock", she's never seen an FBI agent, no FBI agent has contacted her directly, no FBI agent has spoken with her or seen her, according to her own account.
Conspicuous following is the most famously employed tactic, and obviously where it got its name, but it isn't the sole defining tactic. Bumper lock is the application of stress through overt investigation - and that doesn't necessitate direct contact.
Your loose definition of "bumper lock" includes every single interaction any LEO has with anyone, anyone related to anyone else, and even anyone's lawyer, and is therefore worthless.
This would be bumper lock if the FBI had actually contacted Isis at all, directly or indirectly. They haven't. What the hell do you want them to do if they need to talk to someone?
Well if I had thought I was in a conversation where I had to guard against a bad faith interpretation, then I would have been more careful (and verbose) - repeating the intent component I've already mentioned. So with that in mind, no, it doesn't include every interaction.
> What the hell do you want them to do if they need to talk to someone?
A formal letter would be nice, bonus points for including information that would allow one to prepare supporting documents. Civil interaction with legal representation would be an improvement. Basically any amount of effort to inform beyond what has been described.
According to you, the FBI should have known she was unwell and treated her as such, which I can understand. Having never actually talked to her or even been aware that she was having panic attacks or other mental issues as a result of their inquiries, I fail to see how you would expect the FBI agents to do that, however.