Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks Censorship Crime Government The Internet The Military United States Your Rights Online

Ex-Marine Detained Under Operation Vigilant Eagle For His Political Views Sues 279

Posted by timothy
from the within-his-rights dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • I should hope so (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:26AM (#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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:42AM (#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.

    • by Fubari (196373) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:51AM (#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."

      • by houghi (78078) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:12AM (#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".

      • by Kreigaffe (765218) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:19AM (#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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • by GryMor (88799) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:45AM (#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.

        • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        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

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

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

      • 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.

      • 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 [wikipedia.org], from their song Bring Me Down [azlyrics.com]:


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

      /The Government

    • 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 t

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 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

  • Misinformation (Score:5, Informative)

    by supersat (639745) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:32AM (#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.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dcnjoe60 (682885) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:26AM (#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.

      • 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!

      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        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 f

        • by Dcnjoe60 (682885)

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

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

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

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

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

          • by meglon (1001833)

            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 [wsj.com]

            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 t

    • Unmisinformation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by neoshroom (324937) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:37AM (#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].
  • Just because a story has some connection to Facebook doesn't mean it's about technology.

    • by wbr1 (2538558) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:51AM (#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.
      • by Kreigaffe (765218) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:59AM (#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.

        • 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 pers

          • by Kreigaffe (765218)

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

        • If you don't think they were actual threats, why would you agree with detaining him? The thing is, if you classify these statements as mentally ill and potentially dangerous (and look around: the severing heads comment was actually a song quotation) then you also have to classify a good 15-25% of Tea Partiers as mentally ill and similarly dangerous. As I've posted elsewhere under this story, Ted Nugent is a fabulous example of this. Threatens suicide and presendential assassination in the same breath and n
      • by Hentes (2461350)

        What makes you think i read it?

  • Irony! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _KiTA_ (241027) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:33AM (#43820679) Homepage

    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. :)

  • by ThunderBird89 (1293256) <zalanmeggyesiNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:39AM (#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.

    • by Kreigaffe (765218) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:17AM (#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.

      • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:59AM (#43820933) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by Kreigaffe (765218)

          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

        • 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.

      • 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".

      • 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?

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

  • get real (Score:5, Informative)

    by onyxruby (118189) <{onyxruby} {at} {comcast.net}> on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:44AM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:54AM (#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.
      • by tgd (2822)

        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kreigaffe (765218) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:05AM (#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.

      • 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
  • Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wbr1 (2538558) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @08:50AM (#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.

  • 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]

    • 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?

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      You are linking the moonie times? Really? Why not just link to infowars
  • Raub claimed the posts were simply song lyrics and political views.

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

  • Social Contract (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion (181285) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @09:28AM (#43820839) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by danlip (737336) on Saturday May 25, 2013 @10:12AM (#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.

    • by dbIII (701233)

      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.

    • 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.

    • by Bob9113 (14996)

      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

  • 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'

  • 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.

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

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

      Bradley Manning is being detained for his political views; because holding officials accountable by letting the voters know what they've been doing is too democratic fo

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

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

      • It is not political and it is not because he's gay (yes, there are those who've cast it like this)
        Bradley Manning is being held because he committed a Federal crime by disclosing classified information.
        He had the highest level security clearance and knowingly disclosed classified information. At a moral level he violated an oath and potentially put American lives at risk. He was a soldier. His job was to follow orders and not to decide what should and should not be classified. If he was not prepared t
  • Why on earth is 'crime' the top tag for this story?
  • UCMJ laws are not the same as non Military Justice and I think you have less rights.

    • by PPH (736903)

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

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

% A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back the when it begins to rain. -- Robert Frost

Working...