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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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!

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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'.

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

[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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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..

[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: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: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.

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..

[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.