Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted about a year ago | from the within-his-rights dept.

Social Networks 279

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."

cancel ×

279 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I should hope so (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820665)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820699)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820713)

Other than complaining, what are you doing about it? Words without action are little better than apathy.

Re: I should hope so (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820803)

.. 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 (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#43820903)

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/ [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 (3, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#43821049)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820805)

Apathy? Yes
Being "drunk" and "high" are not signs of apathy and a drinking Joe six pack probably has a statistically higher than average rate of questioning the government and against government control.

I see the average middle class american that sits that gets their information spoon fed to them from the major network "news" as the bulk source of the apathy.

How many people do you know that are drunk and high that would say "I'm not doing anything wrong, let them search my house" compared to the second group I mentioned?

not so simple... Re:I should hope so (5, Insightful)

Fubari (196373) | about a year ago | (#43820725)

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/ [networkworld.com]

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820767)

Agreed...

Processing, prosecution data, defendant 00000

Processing, defense data, defendant 00000

GUILTY

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43820963)

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 (5, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#43820775)

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 (0)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a year ago | (#43821021)

He apparently was denied this due process and that is what is is suing for.

He was apparently treated exactly as the appropriate law says people making threats and displaying signs of possibly violent mental illness should be treated. There was probable cause to believe that he had violated the law; arresting him was thus in accord with due process.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821127)

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 (5, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43820807)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820863)

I absolutely disagree.

Even if he is mentally unstable, even if he is indeed guilty, the point here is that he was detained without due process.

So yes, this is a rights issue.

Civil involuntary detention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820943)

Even if he is mentally unstable, even if he is indeed guilty, the point here is that he was detained without due process.

If he even appeared to a law enforcement officer to be mentally unstable where his mental state might pose a danger to others or himself, the laws of most (all?) states allow law enforcement to force him to a mental hospital for detainment until doctors decide whether he is or is not actually that unstable.

DNRTFA, but if that's the route they took then he received all the due process he is allowed by law.

Re:Civil involuntary detention (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#43821069)

Sure, but how is a law enforcement officer supposed to be able to determine if someone is mentally unstable. Believing in the Illuminati is no more proof of mental instability than believing Fox News to be a reliable source of journalism. If ranting about the Illuminati is sufficient to detain someone without due process, then we should be doing the same for a large portion of our population that watches Fox News.

Re:Civil involuntary detention (5, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43821173)

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.

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so (5, Informative)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43821053)

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 (2)

budgenator (254554) | about a year ago | (#43820825)

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

Re:not so simple... Re:I should hope so (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43820877)

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 (5, Interesting)

GryMor (88799) | about a year ago | (#43820887)

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 (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43821107)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820953)

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 (3, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43821081)

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:I should hope so (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about a year ago | (#43820795)

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

/The Government

Re:I should hope so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820867)

Say that to the american native indians. Oh wait, they don't really exist anymore.

That's why: Survival of the cruellest psycopaths.

Peace and safety is not in the interest of these kinds of people.

Re:I should hope so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820869)

"You're either with us or you're against us." -A fucking moron

Re:I should hope so (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#43820921)

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.

 

Misinformation (5, Informative)

supersat (639745) | about a year ago | (#43820675)

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 (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43820751)

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 [networkworld.com]
I wish him luck with the "they were only song lyrics" defense.

Re:Misinformation (5, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#43820831)

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 (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43820881)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820961)

Sorry to break it to you, but you're not "as liberal as they come." If you were, you'd be thrilled with all the government control, because the government knows best. You'd think DHS is a "good thing" and believe they ARE protecting us.

I know it's popular to be considered liberal, and somehow that's been associated with being "enlightened" but it's probably time to recognize you're really not as liberal as you think you are.

Re:Misinformation (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43821147)

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.

Unmisinformation (3, Interesting)

neoshroom (324937) | about a year ago | (#43820859)

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 [wikipedia.org] .

Facebook has become a part of life (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43820677)

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

Re:Facebook has become a part of life (4, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#43820723)

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 (3, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43820737)

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 (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year ago | (#43820941)

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 (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43821089)

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

Re:Facebook has become a part of life (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43820799)

What makes you think i read it?

Re:Facebook has become a part of life (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43820987)

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.

Irony! (3, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | about a year ago | (#43820679)

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! (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43820965)

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?

Re:Irony! (2, Insightful)

Dr. Zim (21278) | about a year ago | (#43821043)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821025)

Lets look up history. FDR, executive order 9066, all Japanese on the West Coast of the US were sent to interment camps. Sounds a LOT like you are caliming right-wingers would do.

Now how right-wing is FDR? Perhaps you have your facts wrong and it is the left-wing that historically wants to lock everyone one. This ex-Marine is just another example to counter you talking points.

Funny how actual history and facts don't line up with your talking points.

Ah, Irony. :)

Re:Irony! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43821137)

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?

Two sides to a coin (5, Insightful)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year ago | (#43820687)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820703)

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Re:Two sides to a coin (3)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year ago | (#43820709)

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

Re:Two sides to a coin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820727)

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.

From a link:

“Brandon Raub’s case exposed the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting military veterans for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state,” John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said in a statement.

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.

And if those are truly his views, I agree. With the PATRIOT Act, the increase in police powers, the disregard for people's Rights, and increase the Executive power over the last couple of decades, .... the guy as a point.

Re:Two sides to a coin (4, Informative)

ToadProphet (1148333) | about a year ago | (#43820743)

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 [guardian.co.uk]

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820837)

According to your linked article, statistics agree that veterans are less likely to offend but are more likely To be convicted. Sounds like the guy's concern about bias against veterans may be justified. The article also seems to bolster the GP's point about vets.

Thanks for posting.

Re: Two sides to a coin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820937)

Nope, the statistics agree that when veterans are convicted of a crime, it's more likely to be for a violent crime, than some other criminal offense.

Re: Two sides to a coin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821103)

While the linked article is a bit unclear, if you read the article it is based on, a few thing become apparent.

1. All the data is from the UK.
2. The data includes crimes committed before and after enlistment so certainly can't say much about prosecutorial bias.
3. I believe what they are trying to say is that soldiers are less likely to commit non-violent crime but more likely to commit violent crimes.

Re:Two sides to a coin (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year ago | (#43820757)

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 (4, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43820793)

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 (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43820933)

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 (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43821077)

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 (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year ago | (#43821011)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821019)

I think you just advocated "taking care of the mental health of our vets" by locking them up. You might want to rethink your position. Unless you actually believe that the way to take care of vets is to lock them up. In which case, damn.

Re:Two sides to a coin (4, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43821209)

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 (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#43821083)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820905)

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 [nbcnews.com] 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 (0)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about a year ago | (#43820973)

1) Not "extra-screwed", but "given extra attention", in both senses of the phrase: a soldier's job deserves extra compensation and benefits, not just to them, but their next-of-kin as well; however, by its very nature, it also merits extra scrutiny so his access to automatic weapons and other lethal implements doesn't lead to any sort of incident, simply because such an incident, owing to his superior training and equipment, is much more dangerous than any rampage by a civilian.

2) By the same logic, your death ten seconds after reading this reply (if you ever will) would be equally inconsequential. Yet I'm sure you and your loved ones would disagree with that. No loss of life is inconsequential, not even from a political standpoint.

3) Yes, we get rapid access to a lot more information than, say, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. Your point is...?
I would say that rational people can filter out what's a danger to them and what's not, as well as the degree of danger posed. A terror attack in the US won't mean much to me, yet, being European, one in the UK, France, or Germany will make me start worrying due to the greater proximity and ease of movement in the EU.

4) Like I pointed out, I'm not American. And anyway, generalization never leads to anything good...

5) Most of your post had nothing to do with my quote. Your point was...?

get real (4, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#43820705)

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 (4, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#43820731)

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 (2)

tgd (2822) | about a year ago | (#43821063)

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 (4, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43820747)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820913)

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 (0)

budgenator (254554) | about a year ago | (#43820929)

I for one think it's a good idea if the government makes an effort to keep tabs on the mental health of veterans.

Would be if the Government minions were mentaly healthier and had less ulterior motives than the Vets they were keeping tabs on; the current bruhahha with the IRS, the abandoment of the Bengahzi staff to the terrorist attack leads me to believe that we need to more dilligently watch the watchers.

Re:get real (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43821215)

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.

Typical (5, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#43820715)

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 (0)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about a year ago | (#43820777)

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.

Jesus.. I sure hope I just missed the sarcasm disclaimer on that... If you truly feel like that, YOU are what's wrong with America... You are F'ing SCARY!!!

Re:Typical (2)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about a year ago | (#43820821)

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 (2, Informative)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43820717)

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 [washingtontimes.com]

Re:Another week, another WhiteHouse scandal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820765)

The washington TIMES is your source? Maybe you should read the real news.

Re:Another week, another WhiteHouse scandal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820769)

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 (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43820789)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820833)

We really do have a right-wing lunatic problem in the U.S. The Republicans call them their base.

Check out the wingnuts on Twitter some time at #TGDN or #REDNATIONRISING. These fools are totally delusional, fantasize about overthrowing the government, and hoard guns. The government should be watching them because even having one of them act-out their violent fantasies is a serious problem.

Re:Another week, another WhiteHouse scandal (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#43820895)

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

Re:Another week, another WhiteHouse scandal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821071)

Get back to your Washington Compost fantasy world, you loonie leftie.

How do YOU like it? Huh?

Crossed the Line (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43820763)

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.

Ahh you lefties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820829)

Had THE government done this under W, to all the folks talking about stringing Bush up, killing, doing the same to him that he is doing to XYZ, etc... You all would be having a heart attack. Free speech and all.

My how the tide has changed. Back then, it was an every American's unquestioned right to protest their disagreement with THE government. But now if you do it, you are a racist, traitor, etc...

Waffle much?

Social Contract (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#43820839)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820925)

You do not and cannot give up your rights just because you join the military. Any rules that exist that say otherwise are morally wrong, and you're disgusting for defending such things.

Have fun being groped at airports, freedom-hater.

Re:Social Contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821039)

Spoken by someone who has never been in the military. I'm trying to imagine what would happen if this guy had blown someone up and it was later found out that the authorities had been aware of his disturbed rantings and did nothing. The outrage would be in another direction then, eh? He sounds like he needs help but is now unlikely to get it. Someone who is mentally ill, as a rule, doesn't recognize that. Involuntary commitment for a brief period of observation is the correct course of action. There are real violations of our freedoms going on, this isn't one of them.

Re:Social Contract (4, Insightful)

danlip (737336) | about a year ago | (#43820997)

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 (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43821005)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821009)

I would like to point out that threatening to levy war against the United States is not the same thing as actually doing it. I don't think that Facebook posts alone can amount to treason. In practice, very few people have ever been charged with treason in the United States.

Re:Social Contract (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#43821073)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821227)

A. a 26 year old military retiree was retired for some sort of a medical issue. B. Accepting military retirement puts someone in what's called 'limited duty' status. They are still in the military and subject to recall. Does someone here actually want the military running around like that in public?

Bad detention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43820843)

The fact that the man has had military training does not justify any element of detention. Matter of fact being in the armed forces is sort of a proof that one is not nuts. They do not train the mentally ill.
            So the military taught him to use a rifle and probably how to make small bombs or use small bombs. That means that he is equal to most boys raised on a farm. And farm boys do pretty well in hand to hand confrontations as well.
            Many people sense that there is some sort of conspiracy. They try to grasp it and pick something to focus on like the Masons or the Illuminatti or some other organisation.
            The sad part that there really is a conspiracy but it is sloppy and unorganised. For example protesting drones is all in season right now. All facts about drones are ignored. Drones save lives. Look at battle films. Recall Vietnam and the extensive use of Napalm that burned many innocents while trying to kill enemy soldiers. Drones can target very closely. We no longer have to bomb an entire city in hope of killing one or two enemy troops. Naturally our enemies scream loudly about drones as they know that drones do a great job. Our public is ignorant enough to belive the line that drones are murderous weapons.

Give me a break (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year ago | (#43821027)

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.

SwagScent.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821041)

Discount Perfume, Cologne, and Cosmetics: http://www.swagscent.com

And the Foxification of Slashdot is complete ... (1)

tgd (2822) | about a year ago | (#43821051)

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. (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#43821167)

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.

Rambling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43821221)

While his ramblings were obviously over the top, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he actually intended to commit any acts of violence. I've had coworkers/associates rant about wanting to nuke the middle east flat to get rid of all of the "towelheads/cameljockies", should they be arrested/committed for intent to perpetrate mass murder? The government has proven that they are incapable of "preventing terrorism", they haven't caught a single bona fide terrorist before they attacked. The only thing they have managed to do is intimidate & harass tens of thousands of innocent people and find a few hapless buffoons to con into "planning attacks" where the government supplies money, plans & encouragement.

"crime"? (1)

foreverdisillusioned (763799) | about a year ago | (#43821223)

Why on earth is 'crime' the top tag for this story?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>