Ex-Marine Detained Under Operation Vigilant Eagle For His Political Views Sues

stry_cat writes "You may remember the story of Brandon Raub, who was detained without due process over some Facebook posts he made. Now with the help of the Rutherford Institute, he is suing his captors. According to his complaint [PDF], his detention was part of a federal government program code-named 'Operation Vigilant Eagle,' which monitors military veterans with certain political views."

Comments

I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

When will those idiots running things realise disagreeing with your views doesn't make you an enemy?

The governments are doing more to destroy peace & safety of it's people than the terrorists ever did.

Re:I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

The governments are doing more to destroy peace & safety of it's people than the terrorists ever did.

Governments are doing this with ease, because apathy allows it to happen. We are destroying ourselves, and as long as joe six-pack can get his beer and pills, he's happy and content with drones flying over his head, and will be too drunk or high to notice his Rights are gone one day. Not weakened. GONE.

Of course, the average mouth-breather won't notice this until they're staring into the mugshot camera, soon to join the masses of the Incarcerated States of America.

Control. That is the end game. By whatever means necessary. That should be painfully obvious in this day and age when the word patriot is synonymous with terrorist.

Re:I should hope so

[just_a_monkey]

So... Are you saying that you disagree with our views on how to run this place?

/The Government

Re: I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and what actions do you suggest? Neither ballots nor bullets are an effective means of change from an individual.
Words are more powerful than you give them credit, to change hearts and minds.

Re: I should hope so

[dmbasso]

Words are more powerful than you give them credit, to change hearts and minds.

So here follows mine*: start getting money out of politics - http://www.wolf-pac.com/ - and contribute personally, not only with your money.

* I'm not an American, but I wish my fellow Earthlings to recover from the current insanity (which btw is a global trend, unfortunately).

Re:I should hope so

[lightknight]

You misunderstand their intent. Part 1: From their limited vantage point, allowing people to speak freely about fringe political viewpoints allows for them to become bolder, to assemble in various places, and plan to change the status quo to whatever their particular fringe viewpoint specifies. Part 2: By acting on this objective, with this predicted reaction, spinners and their like can claim that more interference / ruling is needed, thus allowing the government to justify its future and current actions to the plebians^H^H^H^H^Hpeople.

See 'Fallacies of Rulers, Chapter 3, Paragraphs 4-7' for further details.

 

Re: I should hope so

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. Voting doesn't do squat when you're limited to two pre-approved choices that are both bad. And bullets (or explosives) don't help either; just ask Jared Loughner or Timothy McVeigh; their actions sure didn't help matters any.

The pen (or the keyboard) truly is mightier than the sword. Of course, while mighty, the keyboard isn't very effective when the country's populace is completely dumbed-down and apathetic.

Personally, my hope is that the political and economic pressures in the US will cause it to break apart into a handful of separate republics, and that by being freed of having to compromise with the other states with completely different views and values, some of those republics will prosper, much like some of the eastern European countries prospered after being freed of Soviet rule (such as Czech Republic and Poland).

Re:I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

In a democracy, being critical of the government is a DUTY. It doesn't make you an enemy of the government. It means you care enough about the government to offer feedback that people can hope will result in positive change.

Granted, there are limits. For example, advocating violence as a means to accomplish change in a government that is already democratic isn't the right way to do it. You state your views publicly, talk to your representatives, vote, try to influence other people to vote sensibly, get organized politically, that kind of thing. That's what you're *supposed* to be doing. But the moment people start getting "questioned", charged, put in jail, etc.by the government for simply stating views that might be unpopular (again, short of advocating violence), then that is a sign of a serious problem. It's the people doing the charging that are being anti-democratic and anti-government, because they're obstructing free expression.

Then there's this guy. He clearly has some mental health problems or is just plain stupid (Illuminati? Please). But he still has rights. And if people are mentally ill they deserve proper treatment, not incarceration. It's a fine line, but the first response shouldn't be to send the FBI or (as in this case) be detained without due process. There's a process whether it's a normal, non-health-related situation or someone really is mentally ill. In a democracy, you don't infringe on people's rights without some pretty damn careful consideration of whether people have stepped over the line into criminality or they need medical treatment for their own and other's safety. This is a guy that needs help. It's a challenge to assess the situation and deal with it properly, but it sounds like the process was bungled. That question will be sorted out in court.

Re: I should hope so

[tmosley]

Complaining helps, actually. It is when the complaints are silenced that you know it's all over.

Re:I should hope so

[DJRumpy]

This is hardly the case of someone doing nothing wrong. From the original article:

On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"

There is a point where you cross a line from being angry, to posing a potential danger to those around you. I think he easily cross the line where higher scrutiny is deserved.

Re: I should hope so

[kwbauer]

Not the AC but... every time a politician starts talking about restricting guns or access to guns and ammo, I buy more. I contribute to organizations that fight politicians trying to do that. What does that get me? Around here, generally scorn because that isn't a freedom most around here seem to support. We should only support the other freedoms. You know, the freedom not to have to make choices because the government should give us everything we want.

Well, when you expect the government to be responsible for clothing you, feeding you, housing you, doctoring you, etc. why shouldn't you then expect the government to also take care of thinking for you as well?

Re:I should hope so

[kwbauer]

Being critical in the sense of a movie or book critic, yes. Being critical as in always disagreeing with, no. Sometimes governments are doing the right thing. I'm sure we can all find one or two examples if we put on our thinking caps and concentrate.

Re:I should hope so

[superwiz]

The first thing that Communists do is restrict speech. They have to make sure that their brand of insanity is all that people hear. Right, I forgot. Obama is not a Communist. He is Christian Capitalist. Too zealously Christian actually. In fact, a right winger if you listen to other Communists.

Re:I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a fine line between being an idiot and being a traitor, too. people say a lot of things while "venting", but under your stasi state that is a crime. they said they were playing a game and the quotes were actually from that and a misunderstanding but maybe you need your head cut off...

Re:I should hope so

[mosb1000]

Bear in mind that Timothy McVeigh was a veteran. Serving in Iraq, he learned that civilian casualties are a natural part of armed conflict, so when he saw the federal government going after innocent citizen's guns he reasoned that they were the enemy, and the result wasn't pretty.

That said, this case is totally despicable.

Re: I should hope so

[Grishnakh]

That would be nice, but we wouldn't hear the end of it from the southern states.

What are you talking about? They've been itching to break away for over 150 years. They'd be happy to be allowed to go out on their own finally. Yes, they do absorb the most Federal money, but that's irrelevant: go ask all the Southern pride folks if they want to secede or not, and they'll tell you "yes". They think they'll do just fine without a Federal government (or at least, with only a Federal government that encompasses the Southern states and is independent from the north and west).

and would quickly erupt into anarchy once the shit hit the fan. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they killed themselves in the span of a month.

That may be, but again, the Southerners don't see it that way. And if they do self-destruct, how's that our problem? The conservatives (who are strong in the South) are constantly talking about "letting the free market work"; well, let's give them their freedom and leave them to their own devices. They're all adults; it's their own responsibility to take care of themselves. If they can do better on their own, great. If not, oh well. Either way, the rest of us would be better off without their representatives being part of our government.

And it's not just that I think the South should be kicked out, it's the whole union: the northwest, the midwest, the southwest, the southeast should all be separate countries. They'd probably all (or at least most of them) do better without having to be part of a single union where none of them can agree on anything, and the federal government of which has entirely too much power and no longer represents the will of the people (for example: marijuana laws), and thrives on the endless infighting between the different regional interests.

Re: I should hope so

[Grishnakh]

Are you incapable of reading? I never proposed 48 independent states, I proposed a handful of independent republics. Go re-read my prior post before you spout any more stupidity.

Re: I should hope so

[Pseudonym Authority]

Texas being the largest welfare state

No.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they killed themselves in the span of a month.

You're a stupid child.

Re: I should hope so

[Fjandr]

I definitely agree that we'd be better off with a number of smaller countries. I'd love to see the US split into 5 or more independent republics.

At least then the national government of each would be much more representative of the population.

Re: I should hope so

[AlphaWolf_HK]

If we're going to reverse citizens united, then while we're at it we should also ban unions from making political contributions. Even if any one of their members disagrees with a political message, they have to fund it with their union dues anyways, or else their union has the power to get them fired. It's both stupid and unfair to hold somebody's job over their head if they decide to have an independent voice.

Ban hollywood photo-ops too. Those are extremely valuable from a marketing perspective, and if you were to put a dollar figure on it, it would easily amount in the 9 or possibly 10 digits.

Or perhaps we could just leave the first amendment as it is.

Re: I should hope so

[Teancum]

I definitely agree that we'd be better off with a number of smaller countries. I'd love to see the US split into 5 or more independent republics.

At least then the national government of each would be much more representative of the population.

That was sort of the point of state governments in the first place.... until people like Abraham Lincoln screwed it up and turned America from a confederation into a strong centralized government. That is sort of the grinding axe on the part of the south-eastern states in America, where they were supposed to be independent republics with only a loose confederation that addressed very narrow and specific "national" needs on the "federal" level.

It has been misuse of things like the "interstate commerce clause" and even more blatant stamping out of individual state identities which has caused the bloat that we know today as the U.S. federal government. It is so bad that most people I've ever met seem to even forget there are state governments at all.

The big change happened when people stopped talking about "the United States are" and began saying "the United States is". That happened about 1860.

Anybody who talks about what constitutional authority Abraham Lincoln had to force at gunpoint the states of the south-east USA to remain part of the union can pervert that same logic to do pretty much anything they want including building concentration camps for specific ethnic minorities, religious groups, and conduct wholesale genocide of any group that those in power deem as unfit for whatever reason. BTW, all of that has been done in America by the U.S. federal government in the past, and is only inferior to Mao and Stalin (much less Hitler) simply because the scale of the genocide wasn't usually as massive. Supposedly that is something that happened in our distant past, but do you want to stick your neck out and find out if it is still being done?

Re: I should hope so

[PlusFiveTroll]

Ah, You mean the right not to be shot by the police thinking you are Doner.

Re: I should hope so

[dryeo]

That's included, only time I've ever had a weapon(s) intentionally pointed at me has been when the police did it.
What I have had is bullets fly by close enough to hear though the weapon itself was far enough away to not hear the bang. I've also seen lots of targets setup in the bush with nothing behind them to stop the bullet along with empty shells showing stupid people were discharging firearms without knowing where the bullets were going to go..
I see I've been down modded as flamebait for stating the obvious that only responsible people should be allowed to own something that is as potentially dangerous as firearms. In my country it is illegal to sell a firearm to someone if they can't show a piece of paper showing they've had some minimal training in firearms.

Re: I should hope so

[messymerry]

There is a time for everything under the heavens. The time for action is not yet come. Seems I read somewhere that it was effectively only 3% of the population that truly fought the British. Not much changes, huh?

Re: I should hope so

[Grishnakh]

That was sort of the point of state governments in the first place.... until people like Abraham Lincoln screwed it up and turned America from a confederation into a strong centralized government. That is sort of the grinding axe on the part of the south-eastern states in America, where they were supposed to be independent republics with only a loose confederation that addressed very narrow and specific "national" needs on the "federal" level.

Sorry, but no. Go back and read your history. The US was a confederation only briefly, under the Articles of Confederation. It didn't last very long, because the central government was too weak to get the states to agree to anything. That's why they made the Constitution.

If you support the Constitution, then you support Federalism, and that means you explicitly reject the ideas of confederation. You can't have it both ways. The adoption of the Constitution completely ended the idea of "independent republics and a loose confederation".

This is why I propose breaking up the country into truly independent republics, not under any sort of confederation. They always lead to stronger centralized governments. Instead, the country should be broken up into independent republics which are themselves constitutional republics (much like the USA is now, but I think they'd be better off with Westminster Parliaments than the current system, but each republic can choose this for itself). If they want to form a free trade zone (like NAFTA or various other free-trade zones around the world), that's fine, but that should be the extent of their cooperation with each other.

Re:I should hope so

[azav]

He did say that he's "starting the revolution" and he's "here to sever heads".

That's pretty overt in nature, don't you think?

Re: I should hope so

[dublin]

Absolutely. If Citizens United is overturned, then unions absolutely should not retain the right to speak corporately after that right is removed from all others, especially those they oppose.

Misinformation

[supersat]

If you read the linked article, it sounds like he was detained for making threats towards people in the federal government. Given his training, these threats have to be taken seriously.

Re:Misinformation

[TubeSteak]

That summary is a giant train wreck.
Here's a less biased version.

"You may remember the story of Brandon Raub, a former Marine who was arrested for making threats on Facebook. After being questioned by the police, he was put on an involuntary psychiatric hold at local hospital John Randolph Psychiatric in Hopewell VA, then moved to Veterans Hospital in Salem, Virginia. Now with the help of the Rutherford Institute, he is suing Chesterfield County police, social workers, a psychotherapist, and other unnamed individuals . According to his complaint [PDF], his detention was part of a federal government program code-named 'Operation Vigilant Eagle,' which monitors military veterans with certain political views."

Read his facebook wall yourself
I wish him luck with the "they were only song lyrics" defense.

Re:Misinformation

[Dcnjoe60]

If you read the linked article, it sounds like he was detained for making threats towards people in the federal government. Given his training, these threats have to be taken seriously.

That is besides the point. The Boston Marathon bombers didn't have his training and were quite successful at causing great harm. Are you advocating that the government should be monitoring everybody's FB posts, email, postal mail, etc. looking for potential crack pots?

In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process. The man in question was not a marine, but an ex-marine. Does that mean all ex-military have forfeited those rights? What about all government employees? Where do you draw the line?

Post 9/11 people have willingly given up basic rights that the country was founded on that people fought and died to protect, all out of fear and others have capitalized on it. The Soviet Union had the KGB to "protect" it's citizens. Nazi Germany had the Gestapo to "protect" their citizens. And the US has homeland security. Of course, what are they protecting their citizens against? That's simple, anybody who thinks differently than the government leaders want the populace to think.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some right wing conspiracy theorist. I'm pretty much as liberal as they come. But, it is a common tactic of totalitarian governments to use fear to get people to give up their rights. Hell, even in Florida, they just started their own brownshirt program where citizens are encouraged to report suspected terrorist activity to a special law inforcement group (as if somehow, they couldn't do that before).

On this Memorial Day weekend, as we honor the dead, I'll be thinking of my family members who have fought for our freedom in every war in the US has been involved with including the Revolutionary War. I will thank them for their sacrifice and feel sorrow for what naught it has become.

Re:Misinformation

[cheekyjohnson]

In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process.

Not if I'm offended and/or don't like them they don't!

Re:Misinformation

[TubeSteak]

In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process.

Raub makes crazy posts
The cops come for him.
A psychotherapist interviews Raub in county jail and decides he's bonkers
The psychotherapist (employed by the county) petitions Judge #1 for a temporary psychiatric hold
The judge grants petition #1
Raub goes to a local hospital for 4 days
Two social workers (employed by the county) evaluate Raub and petition for a civil commitment
Judge #2 grants petition #2 and Raub is shipped off to another hospital.

7 days after the initial arrest, Raub's lawyer gets a hearing in front of a third Judge
Judge #3 declares that petition #2 is "devoid of factual allegations" and sets Raub free.
Does that sound like due process or the workings of an authoritarian state?

Due process doesn't prevent injustice, it's just supposed to correct it after the fact.
If you want to prevent injustice, you'll have to create more regulations & oversight for the police.

Re:Misinformation

[Dcnjoe60]

In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process.

Raub makes crazy posts
The cops come for him.
A psychotherapist interviews Raub in county jail and decides he's bonkers
The psychotherapist (employed by the county) petitions Judge #1 for a temporary psychiatric hold
The judge grants petition #1
Raub goes to a local hospital for 4 days
Two social workers (employed by the county) evaluate Raub and petition for a civil commitment
Judge #2 grants petition #2 and Raub is shipped off to another hospital.

7 days after the initial arrest, Raub's lawyer gets a hearing in front of a third Judge
Judge #3 declares that petition #2 is "devoid of factual allegations" and sets Raub free.
Does that sound like due process or the workings of an authoritarian state?

Due process doesn't prevent injustice, it's just supposed to correct it after the fact.
If you want to prevent injustice, you'll have to create more regulations & oversight for the police.

You left out the part that the only reason the cops came for him is because of a government program that is targeting ex-military monitoring everything they are posting on-line "just in case." Regardless of whether or not he is bonkers or should have been picked up, the ends do not justify the means. He is a US citizen and is afforded the same protections under the constitution as anybody else. If the government were doing this based on ethnic background or sexual preference, there would be hell to pay. However, because they are doing this based on one's ties to a group, in this case, former military, it is okay? That should be chilling to everybody. What other group is on the government's shit list?

It seems that McCarthyism is alive and well in the US.

Re:Misinformation

[meglon]

You left out the part that the only reason the cops came for him is because of a government program that is targeting ex-military monitoring everything they are posting on-line "just in case."

...except that that's not the purpose of that operation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124501849215613523.html#mod=rss_US_News

It's an operation designed to find lone wolf type terrorists, not one designed specifically to target ex-military.

What you have here is an individual who made loud enough rants against the government they got the notice they so desperately wanted, in such a way as they were deemed to be a possible threat to others, who after normal a normal psychiatric hold was deemed not to be as mentally unstable as they initially thought he was, then some ideological conservative anti-government group pushing him to sue the government and inflate this incident to some big bad conspiracy theory... like conservatives just have to do anymore because they seem to be devoid of normal cognitive reasoning.

Oh.. and, of course, now all the other anti-government conspiracy nutcases are jumping on the bandwagon.

Re:Misinformation

[cold fjord]

Post 9/11 people have willingly given up basic rights that the country was founded on that people fought and died to protect, all out of fear and others have capitalized on it.

Americans have given up basic rights after, and as a result of 9/11? Well, no they haven't, that is pretty much nonsense. Do Americans still vote despite 9/11? Yes. Can Americans still join the political party of their choice despite 9/11? The same as before, yes. Do Americans still exercise free speech despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still worship or not worship the god of their choice, if any, despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still have the right to pursue the legal occupation that they choose despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still have the right to run for office despite 9/11? Yes. Do American's still have the right to travel despite 9/11? Yes. Do Americans still enjoy a free press despite 9/1? Yes.

Do you have a right to communicate in private to Al Qaida? No. That has never been the case that you have a right to private communications with an enemy involved in armed conflict against the United States.

What about Guantanamo? Less than 1,000 people total have ever been held there as part of the war against Al Qaida. Contrary to slogans on protest posters, nobody went to Guantanamo for making a joke about Presidents Bush or Obama.

What about denial of habeas corpus? Only effected the prisoners of war until the Supreme Court created a new right for them. Historically they never had it.

What about indefinite detention? Only effects prisoners of war. Under treaty you can hold them until the conflict is over.

What about no declaration of war? The Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001. Legally it is equivalent to a declaration of war.

In short, your claim that Americans have given up basic rights since, and as a result of 9/11, is pretty much nonsense. That doesn't mean there isn't a threat of that, though. We'll come back to that.

The Soviet Union had the KGB to "protect" it's citizens.

No, the KGB's main mission was to protect communist rule in the Soviet Union. In short, it was an organ of political oppression that spied internally and internationally. When a new country came under Soviet rule, as in Eastern Europe, the KBG was active there. It was always making plans for that, even for the US.

Nazi Germany had the Gestapo to "protect" their citizens.

No, the Gestapo's main mission was to protect Nazi rule in Nazi Germany by hunting down the opposition, although they also "protected" Germans by hunting down Jews to prevent "contamination."

And the US has homeland security. Of course, what are they protecting their citizens against?

The Department of Homeland Security is mainly a regrouping of previously existing Federal agencies, mainly involved in law enforcement, under a new headquarters. It is made up of:
US Customs & Border Protection
US Citizenship & Immigration Services
US Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
US Immigration & Customs Enforcement
US Secret Service (Bodyguards for the President, anti-Counterfeiting, and some online crime.)
Transportation Security Administration

Maybe at some point you could pick out the really sinister part of DHS?

The agencies that were regrouped under the new DHS headquarters continue the law enforcement missions that they had prior to 9/11. But you don't know why they were regrouped, and what it was they were regrouped to try and protect against? Really? Here is a reminder.

Terrorism plots, arrests, and convictions have continued over the years, as this sample shows:

Re:Misinformation

[Dcnjoe60]

What does the fucking IRS have to do with the US government searching FB posts of the US citizens and bringing those citizens in for questioning and holding them without charge? What does the IRS have to do with warrantless wiretaps of US citizens all under the guise of suspected terrorists? What does the IRS have to do with profiling and selecting people for extra searches to travel for nothing other than they have a foreign sounding name or they dress differently or they practice a different religion? Maybe you don't mind the interpretation of the Justice Department that electronic communications do not fall under the various privacy acts, but a lot of other people do.

Get a clue, an ex-marine was caught in a government program that was targeting ex military and others, but primarlily ex military to make sure they weren't going to go wacko. You don't think they don't also target other groups? This isn't some Obama thing, it started long before him. Hell, even with the IRS, it was Bush who appointed the director. But again, this isn't about the IRS. This is about a government that has seized upon peoples fears to erode their basic freedoms. Hell, even abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right to control her body, at least not according to the supreme court, but is about privacy between a woman and her doctor.

Without the right to privacy, then there is no real right to free speech or due process or any of the others. Because they are all predicated on privacy (speech is not free if it has to be cleared by the govenrment. Due process is not actually due process if it only applies when the government chooses to apply it).

Post 9/11 the government no longer views privacy a right of its citizens, or at least not a right worth respecting. As that most basic right goes, so do the rest. Plain and simple and if you can't see that you are either a moron or too young an naive to remember what freedoms we had prior to 9/11.

Re:Misinformation

[cold fjord]

What do the "brownshirts," as you styled the sheriffs in Florida, have to do with FB, or any of it? What do the KGB and Gestapo have to do with it, and your comparison with DHS? Your language was way over the top, and the point was misguided.

It looks like this started with complaints to the government.

The FBI said the interview was prompted by complaints from people who read his posts, including some that spoke of a pending revolution. One said "a day of reckoning" was coming, and another said: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads." . . . The Federal Bureau of Investigation launched "Operation Vigilant Eagle" in 2009 to target white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," with a focus on veterans, according to memos obtained and reported at the time by The Wall Street Journal. A memo detailing the national operation was issued by the Department of Homeland Security later. -- Facebook Posts: Suit Filed Over Vet's Detention

I think you are right to have concerns, but privacy isn't an unconditional right, and in certain respects it can be graduated. The idea that publicly accessible web sites are private is questionable. Groups that advocate the violent overthrow of the government are advocating something illegal, and have been monitored before.

And as to the IRS and FB? The IRS made law abiding, peaceful political groups submit printouts of their websites to them, along with many intrusive, completely inappropriate questions all under the threat of law. It cost them large amounts of time and money, including attorney fees. It is clear that there was a pattern of abuse with the obvious intent of political suppression, and it worked. That is it was real political suppression, not rhetorical. The groups they did it weren't making terroristic threats.

You worry about profiling, unless it is the IRS against certain political groups. You worry about extra searches, unless it is the IRS against certain political groups. You worry about intrusion into social media postings, unless it is the IRS against certain political groups. You worry about privacy, unless it is the IRS asking about people's prayers, lists of donors, and future plans. . And yes, the IRS went after religious groups as well: conservative Christian groups, and Jews. Do you have any outrage to spare?

I doubt the IRS had anything to do with warrantless wiretaps. The real recent scandal involving wiretaps at present is the administration targeting journalists in an unprecedented way. Some have called it an attempt to criminalize journalism.

But when it comes to war, and terrorism, the courts have long held that the President has that power to wiretap people in direct contact with the enemy in armed conflict. But either way, there is a process in place and the security services do get warrants. Just an FYI - Presidents have been doing that at least as far back as FDR. That isn't a threat to civil liberties as long as the limits are respected.

Your point about profiling is largely nonsense. The TSA bends over backwards to avoid the appearance of that, which is why there are so many complaints about 90 year old grandmothers, babies, and the handicapped, of all races, being searched. If anything, instead of profiling the most likely suspects in relation to the current conflicts, there are complaints about the reverse. People who act suspicious from the larger communities engaging in terrorism aren't getting the attention they should. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Just look away and then the problem will go away.

It wasn't the IRS commissioner appointed by Bush that recently took the Fifth in testifying before Congress.

Ther

Facebook has become a part of life

[Hentes]

Just because a story has some connection to Facebook doesn't mean it's about technology.

Re:Facebook has become a part of life

[wbr1]

It is about the erosion of rights and the use of technology to increasingly monitor people. Including you. Very much of interest to many people here. If you are not interested, do not read it.

Re:Facebook has become a part of life

[Kreigaffe]

Except I'm fairly certain this guy is actually legitimately mentally ill, and some of his statements were quite worrisome -- my personal suspicion is that someone he knew spoke up to get him picked up so he could get helped. And he did talk about chopping off heads. I don't think they were actual threats, but they were the sort of thing that had I known the guy I'd be worried for HIS safety.

Re:Facebook has become a part of life

[Hentes]

What makes you think i read it?

Re:Facebook has become a part of life

[stephanruby]

Except I'm fairly certain this guy is actually legitimately mentally ill, and some of his statements were quite worrisome -- my personal suspicion is that someone he knew spoke up to get him picked up so he could get helped.

This is the US, "legitimately mentally ill" people don't get detained against their will for more than 24 hours anymore (even if a loved one gets involved). Rightly, or wrongly, Reagan made sure of that. The big difference here is that he threatened Generals, which is actually not illegal either (threatening the President is a crime, threatening Generals is not).

His training doesn't matter either. If a mentally ill person and a former trained killer threatens his ex-wife or his classmates, at best, the person being targeted can get a restraining order, and the mentally ill person can be detained for 24 hours and his property searched, but that's it.

I realize that many laws have been flaunted or ignored ever since 9/11, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a political process for changing the law (assuming you believe it needs changing).

Re:Facebook has become a part of life

[BrokenHalo]

It is about the erosion of rights and the use of technology to increasingly monitor people.

If anyone has even the slightest reservations re the above, they shouldn't even consider using Facebook.

Re:Facebook has become a part of life

[Kreigaffe]

Pretty interesting, considering a friend of mine was committed involuntarily for 5 months last year.

Irony!

[_KiTA_]

This would be the same type of ultra-far right nutjob (Seriously, "The Illuminati caused 9/11?" Get bent.) that called for the mass incarceration / murder of anyone of middle eastern decent or membership of the second most popular religion in the world, right?

Ah, Irony. :)

Re:Irony!

[Dr. Zim]

References aren't proof, they're just citations of other peoples work. If you read and cite 20 crackpot theory books for your article, it's still a crackpot theory.

Re:Irony!

[I'm New Around Here]

Funny, I don't see anything about Muslims in the article. Where does he say that? If his is "the same type of" guy who called for them to be killed, I'd think that would be all over his quotes.

Buy, hey, don't let reality intrude on your own biases, right?

Re:Irony!

[_KiTA_]

This would be the same type of ultra-far right nutjob (Seriously, "The Illuminati caused 9/11?" Get bent.)

Remember when the notion that something called the "trilateral commission" made up of a bunch of wealthy and famous people were making many of the decisions that guided our lives for us was just a bullshit conspiracy? Now you can look it up on Wikipedia, and see a bibliography full of references. Out of curiosity, how do you explain the immediate removal of the debris from the site before any review could occur?

No, I don't remember that notion, because I don't spare brain cycles on loony crackpot bullshit that was debunked literally decades ago.

Nor do I have an explanation for the "immediate removal of the debris from the site" because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why would I bother researching explanations for situations that exist only in the paranoid delusions of a bunch of ignorant America-hating clowns?

But don't let me interrupt your frothy conspiracy theory filled rant.

Re:Irony!

[drinkypoo]

References aren't proof, they're just citations of other peoples work. If you read and cite 20 crackpot theory books for your article, it's still a crackpot theory.

I used the Trilateral Commission because today, it is a proven fact. There is no question, and notable ex-members do not deny having been members, or that their role was to decide policy in a way that deeply affected the economic and political reality of The United States. But when I was a teenager, someone handed me a flyer on it and I threw it away having decided that it was clearly a bunch of conspiracist bullshit. That doesn't mean other conspiracy theories are true, but it did change my mind about the likelihood of the existence of successful conspiracies designed to control the populace. In fact, since we know them to exist already, the probability is 1.0. And since we know some of them to have been secret before they weren't, odds are pretty good that secret conspiracies to influence or control nations or even the world are a fact of life. They are a fact of history; why should they not be a fact of the present or future? There's a world of difference between believing that the whole world is controlled be one overarching conspiracy, and believing in secret conspiracies to try to control the world, and no amount of bullshit prevarication can change that.

Re:Irony!

[I'm New Around Here]

Now, as for mention of Muslims, I do apologize. I thought we were dealing with your standard run of the mill ultra-right nutjob in the US -- racist, ignorant, et cetera -- who tends to freak out when they have even the slightest light shined upon them by the Government (but demands the Government hold a spotlight to every Muslin and Arabic American 24x7... in the name of freedom, of course).

I didn't realize we were dealing with a frankly terrifying 9/11, "we gotta kill our government before they kill us," style Prepper sociopath.

You have my sincere apologies.

Now will someone please, please place Brandon J. Raub into psychiatric care before he hurts himself or others?

Sincere apology accepted.

Re:Irony!

[mosb1000]

the only consistency to their logic is that they are (obviously) right, and everybody else is (obviously) wrong.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Re:Irony!

[I'm New Around Here]

the only consistency to their logic is that they are (obviously) right, and everybody else is (obviously) wrong.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

They really can't see it. This thread's title fits him perfectly.

To paraphrase the Anonymous Coward:

The worst part is you can tell [the AC] all of this (about his group) and they'll throw the victim card out at you (and in the same breath disparage those who use that tactic. This NEVER fails.)

Re:Irony!

[drinkypoo]

No, I don't remember that notion, because I don't spare brain cycles on loony crackpot bullshit that was debunked literally decades ago.

As usual, you are attacking a straw man. Nobody claimed the trilateral commission runs the world. They do wield disproportionate power over American public policy.

Nor do I have an explanation for the "immediate removal of the debris from the site" because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Yes, yes it did. Yes, I also know I linked right to a conspiracy site. So what? If I want information on conspiracies, that's where I look. If I want information on what the government wants me to believe, I'll look to the mainstream media.

Two sides to a coin

[ThunderBird89]

On the one hand, such an operation can be justified in that persons with military training and radical political views make for a volatile and dangerous group: heightened aggression coupled with access to weapons and knowledge of weapon use, explosives, and demolition can lead to nasty results.

On the other hand, there are very few excuses the denying due process, and proactive observation is certainly not one of them.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[ThunderBird89]

That... doesn't have anything to do with my point, although I do agree, to an extent.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[ToadProphet]

He committed no violence. And as a veteran, I'm sure he had a belly full of violence in his life and is more than likely sick of it. I'm inclined to believe that a veteran - especially one that has saw combat - would be much less inclined towards violence than the general population.

Statistics disagree

While overall the armed forces are less likely than civilians to offend, they are three times more likely to be convicted of violent offences; 20% of younger males (under 30) have been convicted of violence compared with 6.7% of civilians. Those who served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan were 53% more likely to offend violently than those not on the frontline. Those with multiple experiences of combat had a 70%-80% greater risk of being convicted for acts of violence.

That doesn't mean that I agree with 'profiling' veterans, just that your assumption may be off.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[ThunderBird89]

I never said all veterans are violent, nor that he committed violence. And it's also true that there are those who get sick of violence during their tour. But it's also true that military training is geared towards desensitizing towards violence and heightening aggression, in preparation for combat situations, as well as imparting knowledge of guerrilla warfare, insurgency, basic demolitions, etc. for operation in enemy territory. Should a person prepared in such a way exhibit radical views, the stage is set for ugly things to happen, basically he becomes a powder keg waiting for the right moment to act, unless psychological attention (and not necessarily psychiatric) is given.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[Kreigaffe]

Sooo... look, I'm fairly certain this guy's mentally ill. I don't know what you would call someone who fully believes in Illuminati conspiracy theory and makes statements intimating that they're going to walk out the door to start the revolution and then follows it up with, yes song quotes but song quotes about lopping off heads and sharpening axes? And what do you think is more likely -- someone who he's friends with on Facebook reading his posts and getting help for him, or some super-secretive government conspiracy targeting people with 'certain views' (which to Raud mean THE TRUTH! and to sane people would mean.. nothing, because Raub's views are the shit you can listen to on NPR after midnight).

It's a mental health issue, man. I for one think it's a good thing if the mental health of our vets is taken care of.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand, such an operation can be justified in that persons with military training and radical political views make for a volatile and dangerous group: heightened aggression coupled with access to weapons and knowledge of weapon use, explosives, and demolition can lead to nasty results.

Because some of us had the balls to enlist and work for the government we get extra-screwed? And even more so when we point out that having been on the inside of the machine that there could be problems? I've worked in DOD contracting, and I could tell you some stories..

So..

Fuck you, you spineless bastard. Everybody's afraid of their own shadow, yet statistics have have shown that violent crime is through dropping through the floor.

Here's the deal: The Boston bombing and the shooting in Newtown were tragic, yes, but in the grand scheme they ARE STATISTICAL FUCKING NOISE. They are inconsequential. And by paying so much attention to these assholes you are encouraging more of it.

Here's the deal: bad shit has always happened, it's just now thanks the net we get damned near real-time access to all of it, and fast. Now, everybody is afraid of their own goddamned shadow, and afraid to take responsibility for their own lives and actions.. so we're allowing this overreach.

What a nation of fucking cowards.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[drinkypoo]

It's a mental health issue, man. I for one think it's a good thing if the mental health of our vets is taken care of.

I for one would think it was a good thing if the mental health of our vets were taken care of, but the fact is that mentally disturbed vets are a fast-growing and major segment of our nation's homeless. We don't give one tenth of one fuck about our veterans unless they are inconvenient, like this guy. This is not repeat not a sign that we take care of our veterans, unless you mean "take care of" euphemistically.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[ThunderBird89]

What the previous responder said, basically. Psychological attention is different from psychiatric: the latter comes when the former fails or is not present, and takes the form of chill pills, Valium, and other exotic sedatives and anti-psychotics, while the former takes the form of a couch and an attentive ear (sometimes with a persuasive voice added).

As drinkypoo put it, take care VS "take care".

Re:Two sides to a coin

[Kreigaffe]

I'm not saying things are great and wonderful, but this is what should be done for those guys. Mental health care in this country is pretty atrocious as it is, one step in the right direction shouldn't be thrown out just because there's a dozen more steps to take

Re:Two sides to a coin

[gnasher719]

I don't know what you would call someone who fully believes in Illuminati conspiracy theory and makes statements intimating that they're going to walk out the door to start the revolution and then follows it up with, yes song quotes but song quotes about lopping off heads and sharpening axes?

Just saying: If I fully believed in the Illuminati conspiracy theory, then I would never, ever post about it on Facebook. I'd be very, very quiet, and if I was an ex-marine, I would prepare for action and then act. But why on earth would I post on Facebook, where the whole world including Illuminati can read it and make sure they get rid of me?

Re:Two sides to a coin

[Kreigaffe]

Spoken like someone who's never encountered a seriously mentally ill person.
It's not a jail term, it's holding someone against their will, yes -- with the goal to provide them the help they require to function in society without their illness causing undue negative effect to themselves. Or do you think it's better that we just let somebody who believes the CIA is sending mind-control beams into their teeth out on the street? Is THAT the better thing to do? Allow them to wallow in their illness?

You're aware that the homeless are often mentally ill? That the closing of state facilities pushed those people onto the street where they are unable to care for themselves? Is that better for them? Maybe it's better for you, maybe you prefer to just pretend you don't see them on the street, maybe you prefer not knowing that they're homeless not because they're lazy but because they're *crazy*. Personally I'd rather those people receive help, for their own well-being.

But yeah, hey, throw 'em out, who gives a shit right? What's one more missing person case, one more homeless person talking to voices? That's gotta be the right solution!

Re:Two sides to a coin

[meta-monkey]

There's a fantastic article in last month's Esquire magazine. They interviewed THE GUY who shot Bin Laden. They preserved the shooter's anonymity, but it is the true, first hand account of the SEAL who pulled the trigger. Fantastic read.

He's retired now after 16 years in the SEALs and gets basically nothing. No pension, no help with job placement in the civilian world, he can't put what he did on a resume, and the medical treatment for chronic injuries for vets is a joke.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[meta-monkey]

Are you saying you're FaceBook friends with the Illuminati?! Man, I bet they post the funniest pictures of shadowy, world-dominating cats.

Re:Two sides to a coin

[Kreigaffe]

Come talk when you actually know and are close to somebody with a serious mental illness.

Basically, you're talking out your ass.

Yes, people can believe crazy and stupid shit -- but some people who believe crazy and stupid shit do so because they have a mental illness, and that's NOT good. They can be helped, and they should be.

If someone chose to jump off a building because they thought they could fly, would you blithely sit and watch because OMG FREEDOM? Or would you stop them and try to find them the help that they need so that they can actually understand the reality of the world that they live in, that they CAN'T jump off a building and fly?

But hey I'm sure you're right. Let's let all the mentally ill people just sleep on the street and talk to the voices in their head and die destitute of starvation or exposure, because FREEDOM! Let's not make any attempt to help them out, because FREEDOM! Because hey, when you're born with a disability, who gives a shit, because FUCK YEAH FREEDOM!

Re:Two sides to a coin

[CrimsonAvenger]

He's retired now after 16 years in the SEALs and gets basically nothing. No pension, no help with job placement in the civilian world, he can't put what he did on a resume, and the medical treatment for chronic injuries for vets is a joke.

And if he's stayed in another four+ years, he'd have a pension (pension starts at 50% base pay at 20 years, goes up to 75% at 30 years) and full medical. Your point?

Re:Two sides to a coin

[WGFCrafty]

Just saying: If I fully believed in the Illuminati conspiracy theory, then I would never, ever post about it on Facebook. I'd be very, very quiet, and if I was an ex-marine, I would prepare for action and then act. But why on earth would I post on Facebook, where the whole world including Illuminati can read it and make sure they get rid of me?

That's because you're sane and rational. Someone believing the Illuminati conspiracy probably isn't that clear headed at all.

I know, it's quite bullshit.

Everyone knows the world is controlled by lizard people. How else do you explain Nixon and Thatcher?

Re:Two sides to a coin

[Common Joe]

Counter Point with links: No idea which (if either) are true.

The Esquire interview with the guy who claims to have shot Bin Laden.

One of several sources claiming it is probably a fraud. (Google "esquire osama bin laden interview".)

Again, I don't know which if either are true (could be politics on several levels), but I thought I'd post both links for others to peruse.

get real

[onyxruby]

Misleading headline is misleading, he was check into the mental health ward for an evaluation after acting like a nut. The fact that he has views that are generally only held by nutcases didn't help his case.

Guy is one of those conspiracy theory whack jobs that thinks societies refusal to consider his conspiracy theories makes him a political target. Sometimes when society thinks your ideas are crazy you just might be crazy.

Re:get real

[EmperorOfCanada]

I my town there is a guy who pushes a cart full of cans down the street who's rantings are pretty hostile. I can't imagine how long the list of people he has threatened would be but it might very well include everybody. I wouldn't hire him to babysit but his total kill count seems to hover around 0.

So if they want to arrest people for having mad ramblings they could start with anyone possessing almost any religious text.

Re:get real

[Kreigaffe]

I recall when this story first hit.

The guy's postings paint him as legitimately mentally ill. He was picked up not because he was a threat to others but because he was a threat to himself.
Now, maybe that was all unjustified worry -- but if I knew someone who actually wholly believed in Illuminati conspiracy bullshit, and if they started talking about starting the revolution, sharpening their axe and coming for heads? I'd be fucking worried they were going to do something, yes!

This isn't a your-rights-online issue, this is a mental health issue. I for one think it's a good idea if the government makes an effort to keep tabs on the mental health of veterans.

Re:get real

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a your-rights-online issue, this is a mental health issue. I for one think it's a good idea if the government makes an effort to keep tabs on the mental health of veterans.

And many people are glad that the TSA molests people who try to get on a plane? Why? Safety. What do you want? Safety. I'd rather have freedom.

Re:get real

[tgd]

So if they want to arrest people for having mad ramblings they could start with anyone possessing almost any religious text.

Now we're tallkin'.

Re:get real

[Kreigaffe]

Don't conflate sane people doing stupid and/or evil things with mentally ill people who are fundamentally disconnected from reality.

It cheapens the wrongs done by sane people AND the seriousness of mental illness.

Re:get real

[taj]

"Misleading headline is misleading"

          News at 5.

Re:get real

[taj]

Am I misunderstanding a couple basic concepts here?

          A person did nothing illegal but did expressed views some consider abnormal.
          A person was detained for expressing what was considered abnormal views.

How many opinions on /. are considered society norms? There are some crazy posts here but who do they harm?

Typical

[wbr1]

The shame of it is, that Raub may get money from his suit. Then the whole case will quietly disappear, the media won't give it time, why because they have no qualms against a government that lets them buy laws and pursue false copyright claims. It is decidedly not in the medias interest to be overly critical of the government to the point that the populace becomes concerned.

So, the erosion of rights and the police nanny state will continue as it has been.

Please all-powerful government, do everything you can. Ass-rape me, incarcerate my neighbors, whatever it takes. Just protect me from the Indian, the commie, immigrant Latino, drug dealer, the brown guy that prays five times a day, the guy with shampoo at the airport, the four year old girl scared of the scanners, the crazy veteran, sharks, and lightning strikes.
By all means do not protect me from the transfer of wealth and jobs and power to fewer and fewer. I do not care of this country becomes a shell of rich elite surrounding a poor, ignorant populace. As long as I have TMZ and the lottery and reality TV, I will be a-ok.

Re:Typical

[just_a_monkey]

You definitely need to fill up on sarcassium. The sarcasm disclaimer on that is, like, written in ten-foot high neon letters.

Another week, another WhiteHouse scandal

[anthony_greer]

This goes all the way up to the top - Back in 09, the administration put out a report saying that veterans are terrorists...This was highly offensive and troubling to many, but it blew over - maybe this will bring this scandal back to the surface...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all

Re:Another week, another WhiteHouse scandal

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article more closely. It does not say that veterans are terrorists, and by mischaracterizing it stating that it does you are exposing your agenda. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Keep in mind that being a military veteran does not automatically make you an angel; Timothy McVeigh was a veteran of the gulf war. Veterans should be subject to the same scrutiny as anyone (as much or as little as that may be).

Re:Another week, another WhiteHouse scandal

[Sponge Bath]

the administration put out a report saying that veterans are terrorists...

10 seconds of reading shows your statement is complete kooky bullshit. The report says right wing extremists are a threat, like Timothy McVeigh. Do you really expect people to take your extraordinary claims at face value?

Re:Another week, another WhiteHouse scandal

[Lehk228]

You are linking the moonie times? Really? Why not just link to infowars

not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Fubari]

When will those idiots running things realise disagreeing with your views doesn't make you an enemy?

The governments are doing more to destroy peace & safety of it's people than the terrorists ever did.

"Disagree" can cover quite a range; you make it sound like the "disagreement" is minor.
This situation sounds more complicated than "a minor disagreement."
If these Raub quotes are accurate (below), what would you do? People act surprised (and upset that "nobody did anything!") when shooters turn up in movie theaters or schools, or when bombers crash your marathon.
So on the one hand it looks like it was worth investigating. On the other hand, it sounds like the authorities involved here will have some motivation to be better about following due process once the lawyers are done.
All in all it sounds like the checks & balances are working as planned in this situation.

Excerpts from http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/81243/

On Facebook, Raub talked about the Illuminati, a shadow organization in which "some of the leaders were involved with the bombing of the twin towers" and the "great amount of evil perpetrated by the American Government."
He said people may think he was going crazy, but a "civil war," the "Revolution" is coming.
"I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting."
On July 24, he said he was at a "great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle."
On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them.
On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
On August 14, Raub wrote, "The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it."
On August 15, Raub wrote, "And they will say he said it to the NSA first."

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed...

Processing, prosecution data, defendant 00000

Processing, defense data, defendant 00000

GUILTY

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[houghi]

All good and well. Perhaps he is guilty, perhaps not. Isn't that what "due process" is for? To figure that out?
He apparently was denied this due process and that is what is is suing for.

As long as it was not determined by due process, whatever he is saying is "a minor disagreement.". You know, like in "innocent until proven guilty".

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Kreigaffe]

Yeah, this isn't a rights issue, it's a mental health issue.. and frankly I can only hope that people who don't see that simply haven't looked into the details at all, because the other option is that they think Illuminati conspiracy shit is plausible.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[budgenator]

I have to agree, Raub is not a good poster child for the Government's abuse of our rights (neither is C. J Grissom for that matter) his postings crossed the line between free speach and threats verbalised.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[cheekyjohnson]

If these Raub quotes are accurate (below), what would you do? People act surprised (and upset that "nobody did anything!") when shooters turn up in movie theaters or schools, or when bombers crash your marathon.

I certainly don't act surprised. Imbeciles who get angry that nobody did anything are part of the reason we have the TSA and other such rights-infringing nonsense. Myself? I'd rather nothing be done than violate someone's rights.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[GryMor]

This is where the "Do something" crowd falls down a pit of bias. We've seen similar rhetoric from politicians and tv 'personalities'. As rhetoric it's protected speech, as straight statements of non metaphorical intent, it's an imminent threat. The metaphoric rhetoric almost certainly far out masses the straight statements of non metaphorical intent, so just seeing the above is not a proper signal of a threat, though if sufficient resources exist, it may warrant some spot checks to see if there are other signals, on it's own, it shouldn't be sufficient to detain anyone. If, on it's own, that is sufficient to detain someone, then large swaths of society are arbitrarily detainable; not necessarily for those specific views, but for rhetoric of that style. At that point, certain Jefferson quotes may in fact, need to come into play. I hope that point is not imminent, that the trial turns up proper non rhetorical, non protected, signals that fully justify the detention and aren't nigh universally and arbitrarily applicable to most citizens.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the rhetoric of the suicide bombers.

Yet, because this dude was white, it wasn't terrorism...

Go figure.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[BrokenHalo]

My (admittedly defective) memory suspects you might have left a zero off the "blank"'s ID there. But the Max Headroom quote is relevant, nonetheless...

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Kreigaffe]

No, people who are mentally unstable, if they are believed to be a threat to themselves or others (whether that's an outright-threat, or simply a threat to themselves because they are unable to make safe decisions (for example, a mentally ill person deciding to sleep inside of a retail store, or walking down a limited-access highway at night for fun (where pedestrians are not allowed))) they can be taken to a mental health facility for an evaluation, if they're sane but stupid.. that's one thing. if they are mentally ill, they can be provided treatment.

Really. It's a good thing. If you've ever known anyone who is seriously mentally ill, who has been involuntarily committed, you'd understand that though yes they will protest the treatment, it IS the right thing to do. There's nothing quite so heart-wrenching as talking to someone you care about and seeing That Look in their eyes. They do need help.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[I'm New Around Here]

If that is the extent of quotes (I skimmed the linked article, it seems to support Raub's point), there was no grounds to pick this guy up. I'm assuming those were the worst lines he typed on Facebook. Nothing like "I'm going to kill soon". He thinks a civil war is coming, and has reasons about what is causing it.

I've posted on this message board that I think a "civil war" is coming to America. Just this week, in fact. I think it will happen within the decade, and maybe within 5 years. My statements about this situation have been the same since the mid-90s, when I gave it 30 years to develop. So 1995 to 2015 will be 20 years. Our current economic situation may speed up the events I foretold then by a few years, but the end result is the same I speculated about then, and for the same reasons.

So, if in combination with that statement I said I plan to be a leader in the faction I support, and I'm acquiring weapons to use, and I have specific targets in mind, do I get picked up and held? On what grounds? Does me being a veteran help or hurt my situation?

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[I'm New Around Here]

At that point, certain Jefferson quotes may in fact, need to come into play. I hope that point is not imminent, that the trial turns up proper non rhetorical, non protected, signals that fully justify the detention and aren't nigh universally and arbitrarily applicable to most citizens.

That point is indeed imminent, and Jefferson's quote will soon be put to the test. I for one want to see what the country looks like afterwards. And if we still speak English then.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no due process because it was a psych eval not a criminal hearing. Do you even click the links to previous stories or just jump straight into sensationalism?

If you have delusions that an army is going to appoint you its leader and you will overthrow the government is it wrong to send you to a shrink?

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

Due process for issues with mental illness typically involves the following (in the USA):

* A person can be confined for evaluation to a mental hospital for three business days based on evaluation by two people who have mental illness detainment rights--this typically is a police officer followed up by a psychologist (which is often required). This is not a commitment. It is an evaluation.
* A person can be committed to a mental hospital by a judge in a court which will meet inside the psychiatric hospital. The person is allowed an attorney for this and is able to challenge evidence like any other court case. The commitment terms require more evidence for more substantial commitments and the burden of proof is typically "clear and convincing" evidence. An involuntary commitment will also put a person on the national criminal firearm database to prevent sale or possession (which will now be a felony). Alternate options by the court include mandatory outpatient treatment and forced medication (for those who are already committed). The court is required, via a Supreme Court ruling, to ensure that the least restrictive method of treatment is used.
* In order to return the right to possess firearms, a person can again go to court for the restoration of their rights. This will typically require evidence that they have complied with treatment and have recovered.
* A court can order the detainment and commitment of a person in mandatory outpatient treatment if they have not complied with the treatment order.
* If a person entered the mental health system via the criminal justice system and a guilty verdict was declared, few of the above rights will be available.

Do the above requirements seem arbitrary or oppressive? I think they are a good balance. The main things that I would change would be that people facing a court in a hospital should be given an attorney by the state and provided full Fifth Amendment protections (non-compliance shouldn't be incriminating). But the above issues do provide a person with more due process than any other country and require a psychiatric hospital to prove a person requires commitment (and if you've paid attention to the recent mental health debates, many people think there is too much due process). They also keep the person's best interests at hand by enforcing the least restrictive treatment while giving police and social workers a way to hold a person who is suicidal (most common) or a danger to others until they can be evaluated.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Mr. Slippery]

There was no due process because it was a psych eval not a criminal hearing.

An involuntary psychiatric evaluation, like any other form of arrest (the deprivation of a person of their liberty)still has to follow a legal process -- i.e., due process of law. As I stated, it seems that this was followed. If they have evidence that it wasn't, by all means they should pursue a lawsuit, but having read the FB posts in question I put their odds at slim to none.

How you get "sensationalism" out of what I said is beyond me.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[GameboyRMH]

Thank you, so many of the people who criticize his detainment haven't seen the violent and batshit-crazy stuff he was posting to his Facebook wall (the part about Bush's secret pedo-castle was my favorite part). Kind of puts it into context.

And if he snapped and made good on those threats the same people would probably be saying "ZOMG how did nobody see this coming, why didn't someone at least question this nutjob!? THANKS OBAMA >:-( "

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[swalve]

There is a difference between an opinion and a threat. You can disagree with people all you want. But when you or your compatriots start talking about doing something illegal about it, expect there to be some interest from law enforcement.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[spd_rcr]

Agreed.
There is a huge difference between expressing your political views and making threats. Saying you plan to start a revolution and start chopping off heads is crazy and dangerous.

If we're going to discuss government overreach in suppressing free speech, I'm sure there are many more legitimate examples. Hop over to the ACLU.org for plenty of real issues to get worked up over. http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/standing-rights-students-free-expression

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[cheekyjohnson]

There is a difference between an opinion and a threat.

One of them may get you arrested, and while that's happening, people will go on and on about how great freedom of speech is.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[VortexCortex]

I have written MUCH MUCH worse than this. Speaking of the end of all life as we know it. I am a writer and game designer. You fuckers eat this shit up. I'd have a hard time figuring out if the guy was part of my viral ad campaign or not. That's why due process matters. To find out what is truth and what is fiction.

Just so you know: Congress has upheld that the police have no obligation to protect you. Your protection is your own business. No amount of government spying can save you.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[VortexCortex]

Yep. The should have executed H.G. Wells after that broadcast of War of the Worlds. At least then we'd know where the fucking "line" is.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[I'm New Around Here]

This is too funny. The above message got modded as "Offtopic".

How the hell is that post not on topic? Because I mention I agree with one of his general premises, and then explain why? Because I tie my concern for his situation with concern for myself in a similar situation? Surely it can't just be because some random snit doesn't like an opinion that differs from his?

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[fahrbot-bot]

On Facebook, Raub talked about the Illuminati,

Well, hell, there's his problem. Everyone knows "The Illuminati" is like "Fight Club" for the rich and powerful - and *everyone* knows the rules about that.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so

[Anomalyst]

Color me surprised: H.G. Wells died August 1946, after the 1938 radio broadcast that was narrated and directed by Orson Welles.

Crossed the Line

[Sponge Bath]

Raub claimed the posts were simply song lyrics and political views.

When you quote the Bieber, you know "the man" will come down hard on you.

Social Contract

[fermion]

So here is my problem. When kids join the military, they think that it is all free. That they get the free money, free training, free room and board, a pension, healthcare, all at taxpayer expense, for free. You don't. When in the military you boss is the POTUS, and you don't get to argue. You agreed with that when you accepted the above minimum wage paycheck for training. Also, according to what I read, you accept to be inactive duty for a number of years. I would also add that if you go around saying you are a decorated veteran, there is some responsibility to not act like a fool and disgrace that work.

This is true to some extent for any taxpayer funded job. If you are a teacher you can be let go for your facebook page. If you are a politician you can be forced to resign for your tweets. Taxpayer funded jobs are not like private jobs. They come with strings.

In this light let look at this case. This guy is a retired Marine, which means that he volunteered to serve his country, follow the chain of command, and accepted a pay check to do so. He is 26-27 so he is probably still on active duty. He is quoted as saying "I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting." I don't know about you, but when a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution, that would make a little worried.

Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

My understanding he is being treated with kid gloves. He was held in a mental facility, instead of being charged with treason. If he is suffering from PSTD this is a good thing. Many vets do not get the help they need, and listening for these cries for help is something that the government should be doing.

In the end Facebook, despite what we want to believe, is a public venue and we should not be plotting revolutions using it. Everyone knows Twitter is where all the cool revolutionaries go. The government has some responsibility to monitor public communications to keep the country safe. This is one of the few enumerated roles of government, and is why this kid did not have to go out and find a real job. In this case, he many only be crazy as opposed to someone who would go into Time Square a shoot a dozen people. In either case, be it prevention or help, I don't see how this is a bad thing. If nothing else it is an example to kids that the military is not just playing soldier, it has some lifelong responsibilities.

Re:Social Contract

[danlip]

Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Except he didn't actually levy war on anyone, nor collaborate in any way with our enemies. All he did was trash talk. So there is no way this would be considered treason in the US. The US Constitution defines treason very narrowly, and for a damn good reason, because it was and is used to stifle freedom of speech in other countries.

Re:Social Contract

[dbIII]

instead of being charged with treason

That wouldn't stick - not even selling weapons to some guys that killed a hundred US Marines in the previous year has counted as treason since the 1980s.

Re:Social Contract

[lightknight]

The problem I have here is the assumed guilt, without a trial. I can have no part in this, as it lacks any sense of truth, only the vile evil of a group acting in unison to its own self-righteous ends.

Re:Social Contract

[Bob9113]

He is quoted as saying "I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting." I don't know about you, but when a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution, that would make a little worried.

Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Did you mean to say, "Note" or "Not"? I want to make sure I am giving you the benefit of the doubt -- that you may have intended to disclaim the implication that his actions could be considered treason.

If you did mean "Note", then the above is a non-sequitur. You charge him with this:
a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution

You identify the relevant legal statute:
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

And you imply that the former is a violation of the latter:
such a thing is the basis for treason.

He did not levy war against our nation, he did not adhere to our Enemies, and he did not give them Aid and Comfort. At the most he may have presented a clear and present danger, which grants authority to law enforcement officers to detain or use force to stop the immediate threat. Beyond that moment, the detention authority of the civilian government is only granted under the limits of due process.

In the end Facebook, despite what we want to believe, is a public venue and we should not be plotting revolutions using it.

In this sentence the word "should" can have one of two meanings: You might be saying, "He would be unwise to use this means, because it would elicit the just and lawful scrutiny of the law enforcement community, which would be unhelpful to his pursuit." Or you could mean, "He should be stripped of due process for saying what he did."

If you mean the former, you are quite correct, obviously. But I would hasten to add that regardless of his interests, we prefer it when he speaks in public. We want him to make his plans in public. We want our law enforcement community to hear about his intentions, and to have the opportunity to consider whether he presents a threat and should be detained. We want our health professionals to have the opportunity to detect an illness and engage in community outreach to offer him the help he may need. Regardless of whether his speech has any merit or even if it is a violation of law, and even if he would be a fool for doing so, we want him to speak in public.

But I digress. If you mean the latter, that he should be stripped of due process, you are speaking against the bedrock freedoms on which this nation was formed. The right to speak freely is the right most fundamental to Our Grand Experiment and due process when accused based on dangerous speech is an absolute necessity to the preservation of that right.

He was denied due process. Regardless of whether he broke the law, he was not given due process. That is the problem that is being examined.

The government has some responsibility to monitor public communications to keep the country safe.

The government is not being charged with violating his right to privacy or surveillance without authorization. They are being charged with denying him due process.

In either case, be it prevention or help, I don't see how this is a bad thing.

There are legal means for detaining people when they are believed to be a threat. The government can take them into custody. The government can hold them without explaining its reason for a brief period, and can charge the person with a crime and hold them for much longer, subject to the limitations of due process. They are accused of detaining him unlawfully. They are accused of exceeding the authorization that we, the people, sovereigns of this nation, have granted them. They are accused of breaking the law -- something which, as far as I know, still has not happened to Brandon Raub.

Re:Social Contract

[DNS-and-BIND]

You see, that's bullshit. Joe McCarthy was crucified for saying that there were Communists in the State Department - people who wanted to overthrow the US government in the same way that this guy does. Treasonous fuckwits. And yet to this day it's considered a fable, even after Soviet archives proved it. So if they get a pass, so does this guy.

Unmisinformation

[neoshroom]

If you read the article it does indeed sound like that, but you must also keep in mind the article has already re-contextualized his speech acts as threatening. For example the article says:

On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."

But previous Slashdotter comments pointed out this is part of a lyrics to a song:

Sharpen up my axe and I am back, I'm here to sever heads / Compulsive obsessive, I'm also aggressive / My mouth is the message, my life is a lesson, my pulse is a blessing

Apart from this, he could have been writing fiction, writing in character, writing metaphorically, etc. That said, perhaps talking to him more would have been reasonable, but breaking down his door and arresting him for speech which has no specific, credible threats is not. He just sounds like half the people on Doomsday Preppers.

Re:Unmisinformation

[kwbauer]

And yet many left wingers (SPLC especially) use the lyrics of music to demand that the government more closely watch or shut down certain groups. At least, when those individuals are light skinned. When you ask for more government intervention into other people's lives, you maybe shouldn't complain that yours got interfered with as well. Better would be to always argue for less intervention; at least you can claim conistency.

Give me a break

[WOOFYGOOFY]

From this guy:

'Revolution' is coming. 'I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting.' On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"

Pretend it's your job to protect the public safety.. question -is he dangerous or isn't he? Seems to me common sense says that this is hyperbole or a manner of speaking in (angry) metaphor and he's not communicating a specific threat. It can't be counted a specific threat that you'd like to" take someone's head off :" or "fight a battle" or even "shoot" someone "I'd like to shoot him".. you know like that.

My family talked like that all the time and so did everyone around me. No one was getting any guns and everyone knew that.

If you're going to deal with the public you have to understand them when they speak. If you can't do that, then you don't belong in a job where you interact with the public.

You criminalizing everyone around you because YOU don't have a practical understanding of the people you're dealing with and jump at every shadow of a comment that strikes you as in any way suspicious is NOT an option.

YOU thinking about your career and deciding you'll play it safe by criminalizing someone's speech so that no one can say you didn't do your job later is NOT an option. Society isn't obligated in any way to make your job easy, or have their utterances pass your nervous Nellie test of political correctness.

I don't like this particular ex-Marine or what he said but at the same time, give me a break.

And the Foxification of Slashdot is complete ...

[tgd]

Sad, really.

This isn't news for nerds, this is extreme political pandering to drive ad revenue. This is editors being trolls to start a flame fest.

What the fuck is wrong with Slashdot these days? The forced polarization of the tech stories was bad enough.

He threatened violence. Case closed.

[stevegee58]

In typical viral social media fashion this violence-threatening nutjob's has been turned into a hero.
Too bad kids today seem unable to read anything past the first 140 characters of what they read online.
So go ahead an vote me down as flamebait.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[Kreigaffe]

How about ranting about the Illuminati, and stating you're about to begin the revolution, and stating that you're sharpening your axe and coming for heads?

And yes, believing in the Illuminati is a far cry from believing Fox News is news. A very far cry. I'll give you a hint: Fox News actually exists.

Ever been around the mentally ill? Not just "oh i take antidepressants", but "I have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility" mentally ill people. Somehow I don't think you have, if you're conflating mental illness with just plain being dumb.

Keep your partisan politics out of this bullshit, this is not a political issue.

"crime"?

[foreverdisillusioned]

Why on earth is 'crime' the top tag for this story?

Re:"crime"?

[h8sg8s]

That some veterans exhibit a strong sense of morality and liberty is seen as a threat, even a crime by the current administration. Doublespeak has become the lingua franca of our "fundamentally changed" America.

Is Palin still running loose?

[foreverdisillusioned]

I'm all for taking preventative steps to prevent disaster, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that pro-American Government nutjobs are getting a free pass for similarly "violent" speech.

Example: Palin is just as nutty, and I would argue that the phrase "don't retreat, reload" is a much more credible threat (or incitement) than any flowery talk about head-severing axes.

bullshit

[foreverdisillusioned]

Has Ted Nugent been detained for his comments about being "either dead or arrested" if Obama was reelected? Because that's a much more credible threat than this. Has Palin been detained for spouting demented conspiracy theories and talking shit about "don't retreat, reload" ?

No, because those are jingoistic nutjobs. Pro-government nutjobs. This is *absolutely* a political issue, as proven by the selective enforcement.

Re:bullshit

[Gr8Apes]

Ted was visited by the nice officials of the Secret Service. They questioned him, and apparently Ted's responses convinced them to not send Ted off to a padded room.

Re:And the Foxification of Slashdot is complete ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit whining. You've been around long enough to know that there's been a strong libertarian/anti-gov streak on Slashdot for over a decade.

What's more interesting is that stuff that was once dismissed as crackpot conspiracy stuff is now getting traction as the US (both parties are complicit) is being shown to use propaganda programs and techniques on her citizens (all the misinformation that led to war(s), DARE/Antidrug, NSA programs, Rice's Bengazi talking points), shown to have a strong desire to skirt the law in order to "watch" people to "protect" us (warrant-less wiretaps, geo-tracking, hacking, camera systems, drones), shown to use public institutional power and resources to block dissenting opinions (see ballot-access and funding laws), use executive branch departments to silence political opponents (Bush did it too, but Obama's IRS stuff is a whole new level of sinister), and allow money-interests access to do essentially the same thing to private citizens (RIAA/MAFIAA/Cable companies/pharma/agribusiness/oil/etc)

Stuff like this guy in the OP is even more interesting because for some it's "OK" because it's "mental-illness". Who decided that? Just because the mob *thinks* he is, doesn't mean he is. If I yell "I'm gonna kill that guy" in my house, am I crazy, laughing, or just venting? Nobody knows.

Crime or mental illness - both (should) require a process to prove. Otherwise the government finds another way around those pesky warrants - just say "mental illness" and "protection" and you can take the troublemaker away...

But there are more than two choices in the US... J

[bingbong]

IMHO, the biggest problem with democracy here in the US is the mistaken belief you have two choices.

While the solution would take 2-3 election cycles, two duopoly can be easily changed by encouraging people to vote for the party that actually represents their views. Sure they won't win, but consider what happened when Nader got a ton of votes back during the Bush / Gore election - either the big parties will change their approach (as happened then) or the US will evolve to a multy party system.

The challenge is convincing a society bent in instant gratification that this doesn't 'waste' your vote - rather it is a strategic long term investment.

Except there are two standards of 'crazy'

[foreverdisillusioned]

I'm posting the same basic reply over and over for this story, but only because people are using the same defense over and over and being moderated up for it.

Take a look at Ted Nugent. Pubically claimed he would be "either dead or in prison" if Obama was reelected. That is threat both of suicide and a threat of presidential assassination. Reaction: he was allowed to attend a state of the union address.

Take a look at Palin. Completely detached from reality, seriously delusional, tells followers "don't retreat, reload." What's a more credible threat/incitement: a public comment telling the favorite party of gun nuts to "reload" or a private FB wall post from a non-public figure quoting a song lyric about severing heads with an axe?

It's not about celebrity, either. Spend ten minutes reading typical Tea Party rantings and you will find similar vaguely threatening violent comments. The difference is, those are rightwing, pro-"real" America, jingoistic nutjobs. Whereas the content of this guy's posts make him sound like a leftwing nutjob.

I don't have a problem with treating this guy as a credible threat, but only if they do the same for at least a few hundred thousand of the worst, most violent-sounding Tea Partiers.

Re:Except there are two standards of 'crazy'

[kwbauer]

Are you sure he was threatening assassination? I always thought he was making an exaggerated claim about the swiftness and extent to which new gun control laws would be enacted and that Uncle Ted would rather go to jail than turn in his guns.

So, Sarah Palin said we shouldn't retreat but reload. If she was also talking in the sense of government agents coming to take away guns then she was basically expressing the same attitude as Thomas Jefferson. If she was talking about not relenting on getting the message out or not backing down from the political fight but instead raising more money than Obama and running more ads and campaigning even more, then what the hell are you complaining about. The latter is most likely the context in which she was speaking.

Re:Except there are two standards of 'crazy'

[foreverdisillusioned]

Mods: how was my post (gp of this one) offtopic? The issue everyone is discussing is whether this is a political issue of free speech or "simply a mental health issue."

You could argue he wasn't threatening assassination but how can you spin the "...or dead" bit as not implying some kind of violent action on his part? Either a suicidal attack against some government forces or actual suicide, those are the only two possibilities I can see.

I agree you can view Palin's words as being essentially metaphorical. Just like you can view this guy's words as being the same. He was quoting a song for crying out loud! The point I was making is the typically right-leaning authorities don't usually mind arguably-violent rhetoric unless/until you imply they might be the bad guys.

Re:Except there are two standards of 'crazy'

[cheekyjohnson]

Why are you giving those two the benefit of the doubt? That's not what normally seems to happen. What normally seems to happen is that people overreact to every minuscule threat (even some guy joking about bombs on Twitter) and saying that we must act because it would be terrible if we didn't and we ended up being wrong. But these people aren't normal people, are they? We need to give them the benefit of the doubt, and no one else.

Re:Except there are two standards of 'crazy'

[Kreigaffe]

Ted was talked to be Secret Service.

what's your next talking point hombre. Secret service takes their job seriously and will, yes, investigate any threat against the president that comes to their attention. Usually that means they determine it was hyperbole, exaggeration, hot air - and not an actual threat. Sometimes it means that the person may have meant it, but was/is mentally ill and needs treatment rather than jail time. Sometimes they arrest a guy who's driving to DC with guns in their trunk.

Good point.

[bussdriver]

He is free to say anything he wants. He is not being punished for his speech but for threats which are conveyed by his speech.

"Give me all your money; I have a concealed weapon" is all one needs to do rob a bank. My example isn't even literally clear cut because there is no literal threat of violence - but most people would call that a crime.

Bradley Manning is being detained for his political views; because holding officials accountable by letting the voters know what they've been doing is too democratic for this authoritarian corporate plutocracy. Transparency is necessary for democracy to function; the "free press" alone is not enough (and our press is captured by the plutocracy as well.) This democracy has been a farce for over a generation; the Palestinians have a better democracy (it is a tool for placating the populace but it at least is more legitimate... and why not? it has no real power so it is allowed to be relatively functional.)

Re:Good point.

[cheekyjohnson]

He is not being punished for his speech but for threats which are conveyed by his speech.

Sounds like he's being punished for his speech, then. That was his speech.

Re:Good point.

[stevegee58]

It is not political and it is not because he's gay (yes, there are those who've cast it like this)
Bradley Manning is being held because he committed a Federal crime by disclosing classified information.
He had the highest level security clearance and knowingly disclosed classified information. At a moral level he violated an oath and potentially put American lives at risk. He was a soldier. His job was to follow orders and not to decide what should and should not be classified. If he was not prepared to perform this sworn duty he should not have joined the military.
If he's lucky he'll dodge the death penalty.

Re:Good point.

[cheekyjohnson]

At a moral level he violated an oath and potentially put American lives at risk.

Because safety is more important than freedom and transparency? I disagree.

He was a soldier.

Which means he's a mindless drone who should do everything he's told? Again, I have to disagree.

If he was not prepared to perform this sworn duty he should not have joined the military.

In my opinion, he has a duty to identify and make known 'injustices' committed by the government, and he does not have a duty to mindlessly follow orders at all costs (regardless of what any laws or other such things claim).

Re:Good point.

[stevegee58]

Nope. He violated the trust place in him, the highest trust possible from a national security perspective.
He's a traitor and a felon.

Re:Good point.

[cheekyjohnson]

He violated the trust place in him

If there is some sort of "trust" in the military to do whatever you are told no matter the cost, then I think something is horribly wrong.

He's a traitor and a felon.

I'd say people who allow government injustices to go unpunished and/or unnoticed just because they want to follow orders are the real traitors and felons.

Re:Good point.

[bussdriver]

It was the ACTION not the means by which the act was committed. Sure, sometimes there is only 1 way to do something but that does not logically condemn the means.

You can have free speech while also having crimes that only can be committed thru the use of speech. Since speech rights extend beyond literal vocalization to all forms of communication and money you could take your thinking and claim even more crimes are merely attacks on "free speech."

If somebody kills you using kung fu and claims it was speech because it is an artful dance like expression of their negative emotions (which it would be,) then under your thinking the prosecution of that crime would be an attack on their free speech rights.

Is the distinction I was making more clear now?

Re:Good point.

[bussdriver]

I mixed in some bait with my comment for fun. But with a post like this...
OK.
If morality was simple, we'd have an App for it... "iNun" or "Morality Nazi" (catholic school joke)

Manning's leak was not top secret information, it was low-level information - The Pentagon Papers were top-secret, that was a bigger breach - look at that and contrast it with today. FYI, the government at one point during the case admitted the leak did not put American lives at risk. "Potential" is a funny word because it doesn't mean shit; it's worse than a conspiracy theory... The pentagon papers did more "harm" to the war effort.

The oath is to the constitution, not politicians. Past cases in the military have held soldiers accountable for blindly following orders that were contrary to higher authorities. A solider is always "potentially" fucked and most just don't realize the extent of the mess they sign into. They can be punished for following orders or for disobeying them if they find themselves in certain situations without the benefit of a history of military court rulings (as if those were consistent...) Real life is full of catch-22 situations; especially, when dealing with corruption in systems. Only the fanatics on the fringes have the luxury of being uncompromising and they are usually filtered out early on.

Morality is relative by definition. It is immoral to prioritize differently than the chosen standard.
Authoritarian leaning people like yourself, will place authority as the higher order. So you will see it as a moral breach. People leaning towards anarchism will place the freedom of information to the public above the authority. To these people, you are advocating immoral positions or at least undermining the principles upon which this society was founded. Both will at some point place the ideals above the lives of small numbers of people so the issue of "potential" collateral deaths is moot.

There is no determinable middle ground, you either lean 1 way or the other on a topic. Whether or not one chooses to apply morality is a separate factor, a 2nd dimension. Things will get heated when two moralists with opposing priorities clash.

People die serving their country in many ways. To manning's side, his suffering and/or death would be a moral sacrifice for the greater good. It is not treason or espionage; we really need to beat down these lawyers who distort reason with technicalities... one could think motive no longer matters in today's legal system.

Re:Good point.

[cheekyjohnson]

You can have free speech while also having crimes that only can be committed thru the use of speech.

Like insulting the government. You're being arrested for insulting the government, a crime you only committed through the use of speech! But don't worry, you still have free speech.

Since speech rights extend beyond literal vocalization to all forms of communication and money you could take your thinking and claim even more crimes are merely attacks on "free speech."

Anything that's not mere communication through words, data, or actual speech is rather murky, so no.

If somebody kills you using kung fu and claims it was speech because it is an artful dance like expression of their negative emotions (which it would be,) then under your thinking the prosecution of that crime would be an attack on their free speech rights.

Except that that's not speech at all. Threatening someone is speech, however.

If you don't think they were actual threats...

[foreverdisillusioned]

If you don't think they were actual threats, why would you agree with detaining him? The thing is, if you classify these statements as mentally ill and potentially dangerous (and look around: the severing heads comment was actually a song quotation) then you also have to classify a good 15-25% of Tea Partiers as mentally ill and similarly dangerous. As I've posted elsewhere under this story, Ted Nugent is a fabulous example of this. Threatens suicide and presendential assassination in the same breath and no one hassles him in the least.

it makes about as much sense as...

[w4r0nc0re]

why do you think that a revolution of or including public speech would be successful? most americans believe in the two-party system. why would violence change that? unless you can point to some valid point (implicating most americans and pointing to your rhetoric), your revolution is against nothing but the american gun. vigilante justice offers no legal recourse. It is not a popular move. to say it favors a party to 911truthnews.com vs. U.S. generals is to say that some appellate jurisdiction to your vigilantism already agrees with you for a reason relevant to the case. If you can't use the law or the polls to state your case, you have no case. So, do I think he should be subjected to treatment which blocks the D2 receptor, serotonin receptors, and androgen receptors, or do I just think he should be sent to prison? since his revolution appears to be nothing more than the thrill of resisting authority, getting excited, or remembering hate, I want to say go ahead and give him a neuroleptic. soon enough he will realize what his mind is doing, that he has no appeal, and that his enemy is conjecture. If you still think of his actions as treason: why are his lawsuits against his captors and not his purported enemy? there is no good reason to take him seriously. he is not asking for justice. If you think his health is a concern to me or you: why would you say you ever did care about that? he obviously has friends who are an enemy to the U.S.A. presumably the only ones who were capable of expressing a viewpoint to him at the time he committed. it's a shame his opinion of them is now nothing more than a pack of cards: two of spades. ten of spades. ten of clubs. queen of clubs. the guillotine is nothing more than an optical illusion. to just say that's disgusting and move on would completely disregard his bad chess. it disregards his diagnosis. if you disregard his diagnosis why are we even talking about him in the first place.

UCMJ laws are not the same as non Military Justice

[Joe_Dragon]

UCMJ laws are not the same as non Military Justice and I think you have less rights.

Re:UCMJ laws are not the same as non Military Just

[PPH]

He's an ex-marine. So civilian laws should apply.

But then it appears that Operation Vigilant Eagle is an FBI operation and isn't targeting military or ex-military individuals. So, threats are threats and nuts is nuts. Round 'em all up and let the justice system sort it out.

Re:no, it's politically charged bias

[kwbauer]

What a load of crap. Protip: MSNBC does not actually know what the average tea party supporter thinks or says. They'll only tell you about the most extreme example they can find.

Kind of like saying that Louis Farrakhan or the New Black Panthers accurately represent the views of every single black in the States, which also seems to be something MSNBC claims.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[meglon]

From the article:

The complaint names two Chesterfield County police officers, two Chesterfield County social workers, one Chesterfield County psychotherapist and up to 10 unnamed people who may be FBI or Secret Service agents.

... they call in social workers and a psychotherapist..... and other people who "could be" FBI or Secret Service... or simply workers at whatever institution he was held at for a week.

Re:According to him?

[GameboyRMH]

The only evidence of this operation comes from a WSJ article...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vigilant_Eagle

Although needless to say, whether or not the WSJ fabricated this from whole bullshit, you can be sure the US government has something like it.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[SvnLyrBrto]

Nader is not a good example at all, as it's likely that had he not siphoned votes away from Gore, bush the lesser would never have been president, butterfly ballots and hanging chads notwithstanding.

And while my own politics may be somewhat closer to Nader (Though even Nader leaves a sour taste in my mouth on some issues.), Gore would sure as hell have been a damn sight better than the eight years of bush/cheney that we got out of that incident.

A better idea, I think, than shooting yourself in the foot and harming the country overall out of principle, as happenes in 2000; is a fundamental change in the structure of the government to eliminate the winner-take-all aspect of politics. Switching to something like a Westminster-style parliamentary system would be better, IMO. Such systems often require coalition governments to be formed and are better at forcing compromise and including the viewpoints of minority viewpoints that are completely marginalized in our current system in the US.

Re:no, it's politically charged bias

[foreverdisillusioned]

I don't watch MSNBC. And how about you address my examples of Ted Nugent or Palin instead of dodging the question? Potentially violent left wingers are treated much rougher than potentially violent right wingers. Witness the reaction to the Occupy movement.

keep your head down!

[h8sg8s]

So, as a veteran I have to keep my political discourse on the liberal side, especially if I own firearms? I'd like my old country back now please. No, really..

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[ClioCJS]

No, it's not likely. You're talking about a few thousand people who voted for Nader, vs 12 million democrats who voted for bush in florida. You can't pin the actions of a few thousand as more influential than the actions of 12 million. Stop promoting learned helplessness.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[Grishnakh]

Ok, but I still stand by my prior assertion. If belief in "the Illuminati" is sufficient for having someone detained, then so should watching Fox News. Additionally, anyone who believes Obama is any different from Bush should also be committed. So that should cover about 98% of the country right there.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[mosb1000]

His statements seem more figurative in nature. I doubt he was claiming to literally sharpen an axe. But then it's hard to know what someone else is thinking. In the grand scheme of things, revolutions happen all the time, and it's not at all unreasonable or delusional to think that one is coming or that you should start one. And of course, depending on how you go about it, starting a revolution need not be violent or illegal either. It's hard to look at this case and not see the parallels between it and COINTELPRO. I understand the desire to prevent violence, but if that comes at the cost of living with the thought police, maybe it isn't worth it?

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[fahrbot-bot]

While the solution would take 2-3 election cycles, two duopoly can be easily changed by encouraging people to vote for the party that actually represents their views.

The problem with that is there are a LOT of single-issue voters out there - people that will consider one issue to be WAY more important than all the others combined. For example, I know people that agreed with almost the entire platform for a candidate, but simply wouldn't vote for him/her because they differ from the candidate on (pick one) abortion/gun/gay rights. Some people are unable or unwilling to compromise. For the good of the country as a whole, I find this a little short-sighted and narrow-minded.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[meglon]

Ok, but I still stand by my prior assertion. If belief in "the Illuminati" is sufficient for having someone detained, then so should watching Fox News. Additionally, anyone who believes Obama is any different from Bush should also be committed. So that should cover about 98% of the country right there.

...and yet, that wasn't the reason. Psych holds like this are used when a person appears to be a threat to themselves or others. Actively talking about "starting the revolution" because he was tired of waiting SHOULD be a sign that someone is a potential threat to others. Normally someone making such threats would be arrested, but from the chain of events, it appears they showed up, made the assessment that this guy was less a wannabe-terrorist, and more of a mental case, and gave him the benefit of the doubt by calling for a psych hold and evaluation.

I stand by my prior assessment that your prior assessment is flawed because you seem to be working off erroneous assumptions based on very biased, ideologically driven, misinformation being put out prior to a lawsuit to benefit the person who started the ball rolling on all of this by making threats to start a revolution.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[dgatwood]

You can when the margin in Florida was only a little over five hundred votes. In point of fact, had any single third-party candidate chosen not to run, and had all of that candidate's votes gone to Gore, it would have tipped the election solidly to Gore.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[Kreigaffe]

This is not the thought police.

Let's go Occam on this shit.

This guy over a period of time becomes more and more unhinged with his facebook postings, more erratic with his language and more fringe with his beliefs. You knew him, and what he is saying now is quite different than how you remember him. That's worrisome, watching somebody slide into derangement. Then he starts posting things about heading out to start a revolution, and sharpening his axe, and... well, yeah maybe he's just posting things.
That's the problem, though. When someone becomes erratic like that, it's hard to tell how far off the deep end they may have gone.

Most likely a friend or family member alerted authorities, not to protect any generals or presidents but rather to protect this guy from harming himself, because they believed that he had become delusional and fundamentally disconnected from reality. That shit really happens, and it's really painful to see, and if you know anyone like that do try and get help for them because they will need it.

I've had a friend involuntarily committed several times. Going off meds is a bad thing. The things I've been told while visiting... it really is painful, I don't have another word for it. Here's someone you care about and they're just crazy. The radio is playing songs specifically for them, the meanings speak about them and their situation. Things in their personal life are happening (except they actually aren't). Convinced of things that haven't happened, that aren't true, but they have a memory of it and know it's true and you know it's not and they can't believe you, and hell, you're afraid to speak out and correct them because while they're receiving care (against their will, yes) they're convinced that the doctors are actually experimenting on them and it's all part of a conspiracy to keep them quiet, to keep them down, to dull their mind -- and if you try and disagree with them, you're suddenly all a part of that mess and if you just stay quiet and let the doctors help them at least you can still visit and make them smile so they have a bright part of their day while they're recovering.

This was NOT because of his political views, this was and is only about Raud's mental illness (or lack thereof, although I very seriously doubt that he is not mentally ill).

Re:no, it's politically charged bias

[Kreigaffe]

Ted was in fact visited by the secret service and after an interview they determined he was just blowing hot air and was not a threat.

The Occupy movement received a quite negative reaction because the Occupy movement was a pile of shit. I don't disagree with some of their points, but the way they conducted themselves was very unbecoming and only a fucking idiot would think you could sway public opinion to your side by shitting in parks and illegally marching and obstructing traffic.

They behaved like children and were treated as such, and that's perfectly fine by me. Compare that to the likely no less crazy tea party, who tended to follow the law during their rallies and not make violation of laws and ordinances part of their playbook. Occupy had no respect for anyone who wasn't Occupy, the Tea Party at least understands that they need to not actively act like shitheads if they want to be heard.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[dargaud]

How about ranting about the Illuminati

I keep reading about the illuminati in every tinfoil hat crackpot theory but I only just now went to check on Wikipedia:

Illuminati, an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776 to oppose superstition, prejudice, religious influence over public life, abuses of state power, and to support women's education and gender equality.

Woha, as is anything in there is a bad thing !?! Where do I sign up ?

Re: But there are more than two choices in the US.

[dlt074]

Elian Gonzales

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[ClioCJS]

Whoosh. Try comprehending what I originally said. You are now blaming 500 people who didn't vote the way you wanted, and not the millions of democrats who didn't vote the way you wanted. When things don't go your way, the largest causal group is who is responsible, not the smallest. The most responsible people (besides those republicans that were obviously going to vote for bush anyway) was the Democrats who voted for Bush, not the 3rd party people. Again, quit with the learned helplessness; you are completely fallacious.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[ClioCJS]

Sorry, 200,000, not millions. So you can blame one group of 500 people for voting 3rd party, or you can blame FOUR HUNDRED groups of 500 Democrats who voted for bush. Yeah, it isn't a 3rd party issue, not mathematically.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[tragedy]

Nader is not a good example at all, as it's likely that had he not siphoned votes away from Gore, bush the lesser would never have been president, butterfly ballots and hanging chads notwithstanding.

This is called the spoiler effect. Vote for Nader, Bush wins, vote for Perot, Clinton wins. It's the serious flaw of simple plurality voting where each voter gets one vote to cast for one candidate in a single pass election. It's the perfect voting system when there are exactly two choices and the most seriously flawed voting system for any greater number of choices. Any nation using it for their elections doesn't have a real democracy.

The Democrats and Republicans recognize that democracy, as practiced in the US, doesn't work under the current system, which is why they run primaries. In a properly functioning democracy, the two major parties could throw all of their candidates into the general election.

Some of those posts are music lyrics

[girlinatrainingbra]

I don't know about the rest of his postings, but seriously people, have some musical knowledge (or at least some human-being friends with musical knowledge!) That post from August 13th

On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."

is from the lyrics of a vancouver hip-hop band named Swollen Members , from their song Bring Me Down:

I'm far beyond the magic of a wand inside a wizard's fist
Sharper than the hand of Edward Scissor's, I'm a wiz at this
Hotter than the desert but I'm colder than a blizzard kid
Harder than a prison bid, with God I'm never hesitant
My business it isn't as amazin as it's ever been
As long as God allows me to be clever it will never end
Sharpen up my axe and I am back, I'm here to sever heads
Compulsive obsessive, I'm also aggressive
My mouth is the message, my life is a lesson, my pulse is a blessing

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/swollenmembers/bringmedown.html

I seriously remember this being covered on slashdot about three months ago, wasn't it?

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[girlinatrainingbra]

re: I doubt he was claiming to literally sharpen an axe. But then it's hard to know what someone else is thinking.

Yes. Exactly. He wasn't making a literal claim. He was quoting lyrics from the song Bring Me Down by the Vancouver Hip Hop Band Swollen Members:

I'm far beyond the magic of a wand inside a wizard's fist
Sharper than the hand of Edward Scissor's, I'm a wiz at this
Hotter than the desert but I'm colder than a blizzard kid
Harder than a prison bid, with God I'm never hesitant
My business it isn't as amazin as it's ever been
As long as God allows me to be clever it will never end
Sharpen up my axe and I am back, I'm here to sever heads
Compulsive obsessive, I'm also aggressive
My mouth is the message, my life is a lesson, my pulse is a blessing

Now he left out the middle of that stanza ("and I am back") but otherwise it's a word-for-word copy of those lyrics. People do tend to post lyrics or the name of song which captures the emotions or beliefs which they are feeling. I do believe people can quote songs for their metaphorical meaning: saying something does not mean believing in the literal meaning of those words, it can also be a reference to a prior saying of those words by yourself or someone else, or even a sarcastic reference. Girls know sarcastic.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[girlinatrainingbra]

Damn, you make some fine and excellent points. A friend of mine pointed out that the "sharpen my axe" and "i'm here to sever heads" quotes are from the lyrics of a song by the Vancouver Hip Hop Band Swollen Members called "Don't Bring me Down". And I was defending the quoting of lyrics.

But you are absolutely right that people in the midst of a psychotic break or in the midst of paranoid delusions do in fact believe that everything in the world references them directly: that the songs on the radio are not just about them but are directly speaking to them.

So I retract my previous statements. We are of course free to express ourselves, but some outrageous statements may require assessment? Or should the boundary really be at outrageous action? Outrageous statements ought to be allowed and actions that cross the line ought not. But the trick is where does the outrageous statement cross the line?

Allowing detention for statements alone is getting very fascist. Even allowing psychiatric detention or forced psych evaluation for statements alone is not fair: the soviets used to lock up dissenters in psychiatric wards, didn't they?

It's a tough call.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[dgatwood]

Nearly every Green Party vote would likely have gone to Gore had Nader not run. So no, I am not blaming those 500 people who voted for Nader. I'm blaming Nader.

A good third-party candidate should seriously assess his/her chances of winning, and when it becomes clear that a win is not possible, should drop out of the race and allow those votes to go to the lesser of two evils. Any candidate who does not do that is reckless and irresponsible.

The most responsible people (besides those republicans that were obviously going to vote for bush anyway) was the Democrats who voted for Bush, not the 3rd party people.

What Democrats who voted for Bush? Do you mean the ones who voted for Pat Buchanan because the ballot design sucked? Yes, had that unfortunate event not occurred, it would have tipped the election. Nader doesn't automatically get a pass for his poor judgment merely because there were other mistakes that contributed to the problem. Every mistake of sufficient magnitude is equally responsible, because it doesn't matter how many votes you win by as long as you win.

To use an analogy, three people are standing around and see a girl get raped by an unarmed man, but do nothing. One of the witnesses has a sword, a second has a handgun, and a third has an M16/M203. Your argument is that the one with the machine gun is most to blame for not stopping the rape because he could have inflicted the most damage to the rapist. From the victim's perspective, however, all three are equally to blame because what matters is whether enough force was used to stop the rape from happening; the amount of additional force beyond that point does not change whether the girl got raped.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[geekymachoman]

Why you don't prove that illuminati or similar IDEA doesn't exist ?

I recently watched a BBC (!!!) documentary about psychology and marketing. Did you know that the "people in power" thought humans are irrational/violent and should be manipulated to become "happiness machines" as mentioned in the documentary. Happiness machines translate to something like apathetic don't-give-a-shit sorry excuse for a human being who will just CONSUME and do what he is told to do and think. (and majority of people are like this.. they're just not aware of it)

They are creating desires then fulfiling these desires to keep you in line.
In Europe, when people lost a way to fulfil their desires they got out on the streets and started burning and behaving like savages. As long as we people have our belly full, our family's belly full - everything is ok. We think we're civilized and smart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7EwXmxpExw
here's the BBC (!!!) documentary.

This ex-marine guy.. he deviated from the plan and started thinking irrationally/violently. They had to 'correct' that. If you had any influence and started spreading anti-gov material (saying that they're bad or they're part of a conspiracy) they would get you too.

Enjoy.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[ClioCJS]

Wow. Your 2nd paragraph is downright evil and anti-democratic. I gotta wonder why you were able to become convinced to believe this asshattery. 12% of Democrats voted for Bush in Florida.

Here's one Starscream's been saving for you: http://my.firedoglake.com/jest/2012/08/27/debunking-pathological-myths-of-the-2000-election-part-2-democrat-defections-to-bush-blue-dogs-bush-democrats-caused-gore-to-lose-fl/

The rape analogy really takes the cake, though. An extremely poor map of the real model.

Re:Civil involuntary detention

[dywolf]

who gets to decide what qualifies as mental illness and not simply angry rantings?

at what point does (ranting against the president, calling him a war criminal and calling for his arrest/execution along with his adminstration and everyone who voted for him) become a mental illness and not simply another typical pissed off american?

be very careful with your answer because approx 1/4 of slashdotters could face arrest based on your answer.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[dgatwood]

It doesn't matter how many Democrats voted for Bush. It doesn't matter that there are multiple things that could have prevented the outcome. Every single one of those events is equally responsible for that outcome because the absence of any one of those events would have prevented that outcome. Therefore, Nader is just as much to blame as the Democrats who voted for Bush, and just as much to blame as the people who designed the ballot that caused some confused Democrats to accidentally vote for Buchanan, etc.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[ClioCJS]

Saying the actions of a greater number of people is of equal responsibility of the actions of a lesser number of people is logical why?

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[dgatwood]

A single person (Nader) dropping out would likely have changed enough votes to matter. There's likely no single action by any single person that would have prevented those Democrats from voting for Bush.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[ClioCJS]

Because people who refuse to vote Republicrat magically will if their preferred 3rd party candidate drops out.

You truly don't understand the situation. Those of us that vote 3rd party aren't doing so because suddenly there is ONE 3rd party candidate we like, we are doing so because we know there is no viable future of an America led by either Republicans or Democrats, and that to vote for either of those parties is the only true way to waste a vote - It is a vote to make the country worse (which Obama did, just like Bush(es), just like Reagan, and to a much lesser extent just like Clinton).

Our preferred candidate dropping out will just make us vote for a different 3rd party candidate.

And that's actually the exact story of how I voted in 2008.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[AthanasiusKircher]

There's likely no single action by any single person that would have prevented those Democrats from voting for Bush.

Gore would have only needed to win a couple hundred votes out of about 200,000 Democrats who swung to Bush.

Are you seriously arguing that there is no single action that one of the two major candidates could have taken that might have swayed 0.1% of swing-voting Democrats in Florida?

If so, you should probably hire yourself out as a political consultant, because campaigns would be interested to know that no matter what action they take, they can't influence even as many as 0.1% of swing voters in their own party.

Re:But there are more than two choices in the US..

[AthanasiusKircher]

A single person (Nader) dropping out would likely have changed enough votes to matter.

By the way, you also don't know this. If you went back in time, had Nader drop out months or even a year before the election, and then ran the entire campaign through again without Nader, do you seriously think that only a couple hundred voters in Florida would be affected?

Nader's presence as a candidate caused the major candidates to act in lots of different minor ways that they might not have otherwise -- staking out positions to agree with or contrast with Nader, deciding where to runs ads, where to visit, how much to spend, etc. in various places based on how Nader might affect the vote in some states.

Was Nader the top worry in either the Bush or Gore campaign? Probably not. But they were aware of him, and his presence influenced their actions. Given the small margin of error, I seriously doubt you could predict how things may have been different without Nader. That's a MAJOR change to the election.

On the other hand, I'm reasonably certain that Gore could have just campaigned a little harder, made a few different statements or promises to some Floridians, and managed to get a couple hundred Democrats not to defect from him... he probably could have done that with a single targeted campaign stop, if he knew ahead of time that it would matter.

You're advocating a relatively HUGE change to history, and you can't even guarantee what the outcome would have been otherwise. I'm pretty sure Gore had a multitude of incredibly tiny things he could have done that would have the same impact, had he known what it would come down to.

Please clarify

[alexo]

every time a politician starts talking about restricting guns or access to guns and ammo, I buy more.

Guns or politicians?

Because if it's the former, it won't do you any good.

I WON!

[ClioCJS]

^ looks like that finally stopped him :D