The issue here is much like the one raised when it comes to gathering evidence to charge someone of downloading child pornography.  It's well understood that the largest purveyor - by far - of online child pornography is the U.S. government.  Sure, the assumed intent is to arrest and convict people who would have availed of child pornography from other sources anyway, and sometimes this happens to be true.  However, there are indeed instances of convictions being made solely on the possession of child pornography supplied by our own government. 

With Ikaika Kang, the question to be asked is whether or not medical (psychological) intervention was in any way a reasonable option or possibility before he went so far as to swear allegiance to the Islamic State and before he actively sought to aid or assist an enemy or terrorist organization. 

I ask because I do not think it unreasonable to believe this would not be the first time someone has been led to incrementally incriminate himself.