Ex-Marine Detained For Facebook Posts Deemed "Terrorist in Nature" 593
colinneagle writes with news of a marine turned conspiracy theorist who was detained for psychological evaluation after posting rants on Facebook. He has since been ordered to remain in a mental facility for at least 30 days. From the article: "There are conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don't really follow that news, but can people be arrested after saying so online, exercising their First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech? On August 16, the FBI, Secret Service and the Chesterfield Police arrested a decorated former U.S. Marine for 'airing his critical views of the U.S. government on Facebook.' 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.'"
I suspect being a former marine and threatening to decapitate military officials might have had something to do with this (communicating specific threats?). But then again, his Facebook page was reportedly private, and according to the AP newswire: "The big concern, Whitehead said, is whether government officials are monitoring citizens' private Facebook pages and detaining people with whom they disagree."
Nothing on Facebook is private (Score:5, Insightful)
He should know that.
Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, anyone with access to view a facebook page can 'report' it, and Facebook employees have training about which content is against the AUP or plainly illegal, and what needs to be forwarded there. If you report a clear terrorist threat on someone's private page that you have access to, clearly you would expect the staff to forward it to the FBI. This guy may have been a bit nutty, but someone still hit the report button, and I guess they acted on it. Can't say I disagree with the system in this case.
Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone should know that. I believe it's clear at this point that Facebook sells wholesale access to everything they have (including all the "deleted" stuff). I bet they have a price list that includes wholesale direct access to everything in their datebase and they sell this access for a pretty penny to governments and market research companies.
Nothing on Facebook is private, it's even in their TOS that you grant them rights to use anything you give them anyway they want.
Re: (Score:3)
That's beside the point. Here you have a trained killer threatening to severe heads with an axe. I don't know if it's a crime per se, but it's something the government would be held liable if they don't investigate. The truth is that there are a lot of nutjobs, but when you have trained person threatening to use such training to attack the government it would be irresponsible not to act.
Facebook is forced by law to monitor and report on such activities. This is non news.
Careful with that axe, Eugene (Score:5, Informative)
That's beside the point. Here you have a trained killer threatening to severe heads with an axe.
Threatening?
"Sharpen up my axe and I am back, I'm here to sever heads"
-- Swollen Member, "Bring Me Down"
Song lyrics to also avoid posting on Facebook;:
"Run to the bedroom in the suitcase on the left
You'll find my favorite axe
Don't look so frightened
This is just a passing phase, one of my bad days"
"We are the small axe
Sharpened to cut you down,
Ready to cut you down."
"Me and my axe will leave your neck a bloody fountain
Everybody, everybody, everybody run
Murdering, murdering, murdering fun
Swing swing swing, chop chop chop,
swing swing swing, chop chop chop
My axe is my buddy, we right the planet's wrongs
Me and my axe leave bigots dead on richie lawns"
Not to mention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oai-6GpkSkc [youtube.com]
Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (Score:5, Interesting)
Here you have a trained killer threatening to severe heads with an axe.
I'm a former Armored Cav officer. I've been a range instructor and supervisor, and trained some of the instructors who are still active right now teaching soldiers how to use 50 cal. machine guns, grenade and rocket launchers, and even main battle tanks. I've taught courses in how to make improvised high explosives from common kitchen supplies, in amounts sufficient to lead an organized insurrection (and I still have all my fingers). So, I'd like to go on record as saying, If I ever threaten anyone with an axe, it's a metaphor or something. If I was at all serious, I'd be talking weapons that can literally do a thousand or more times that damage from literally 45 to 60,000 times that range (i.e. MLRS). Hell, If I was at all serious, I wouldn't be talking - that's called operational security, and is also a concept to which this marine was probably exposed. (And incidentally, it's sever, not severe http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sever [reference.com] ).
Yes, investigate. The situation justifies reasonable care. I'd consider a 24 hour detention for evaluation to be just possibly reasonable, or a properly warrented search to see if this former marine has a weapons collection, and what kind. Maybe even those should be reserved as options following up a quick law enforcement interview. And, yes, the government has the mandate to check into thretening sounding statments and see if there's serious intent connected to them, and can put a person to at least some inconvenience following up. Most jurisdictions have some standard of just how inconvienienced the former marine can be before he he has a valid complaint of government overreaction. However, I'd have to figure that any time a well trained soldier, airman, marine, or whatever is talking about archaic weaponry such as axes, the chances is they are actually less serious than some civilian nutcase who thinks an axe is some sort of really elite weapon that might easily get them past modern arm bearing security guards and such. I don't think the Marines are suddenly teaching people that axes beat assault rifles and sub-machine guns - at least I hope not.
Re:Nothing on Facebook is private (Score:5, Interesting)
I would think they were more concerned that he might walk into a DMV or similar low-security government office and start hacking up the people as a signal to "start the revolution". Some of the stuff he posted to his Facebook page appears seriously disturbed. Not only does he claim that the government perpetrated 9/11 and that Obama is a communist (pretty standard crazy conspiracy stuff), he accuses "world leaders" of preforming ritual sacrifices of children and claims that the Bushes "have a secret Castle in Colorado where they have been raping and sacrificing children for many years". That's pretty specific and insane.
From a casual inspection of his Facebook scroll, he looks seriously crazy. Combining the crazy, the delusions of grandeur, and the threats, I can certainly see why he needed a psychiatric evaluation. He seems to be spiralling into madness.
Re: (Score:3)
All men are equal before the court in the eyes of the law. "Special training" or not, you cannot be held to a different standard in a court of law just because of your background, and cases have been overturned on such grounds. Movies like ConAir not withstanding.
Also, having been a marine these past 12 years, I dont recall ever recieving special training in the usage of axes, or the severing of heads.
you can't yell fire in a movie theater (Score:3, Insightful)
and you can't threaten people and say a lot of other things
free speech is about speaking normal grievances against the government and using the political process to change them
Re: (Score:3)
False analogy. The owner of the theatre has the right to limit your speech. Free speech only protects you (theoretically) against governmental repercussions.
Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (Score:4, Insightful)
and you can't threaten people and say a lot of other things
You reckon? Maybe this [wikipedia.org] is coming from a time the US justice was still fully sane, but...
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
...
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)...
...
As of 2011, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969.
Or did lately any post on FB become a concrete action?
Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's amused me that one's right to free speech is limited by the need to protect the safety of others, but the right to own weapons is considered inviolable. Tell me, which of these two rights is more important in a democracy?
Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (Score:5, Insightful)
These rights are both limited when they harm others. You cannot cause physical harm to others with your speech (yelling fire in a movie theater, making specific threats of physical violence) just like you cannot cause harm to others with a gun.
Owning a gun and using a gun to shoot someone are two very different things, just as speech and speech which incites violence are two different things.
I see no contradiction or conflict here.
Re: (Score:3)
We have a right to own guns, not to use them in a way that threatens the rights of others. We have a right to free speech, but not to use it dangerously. I see no problem here.
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, you can't call in a false bomb threat then. Plenty of present-day examples for that.
You probably can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater either. I don't believe it's been tested. The decision in which the phrase originated was later overturned, but that not because shouting fire in a theater is okay.
The original decision said that protesting the draft was akin to shouting fire in a theater, since it would cause harm to the nation. The glaringly obvious flaw in that reasoning is the question
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (Score:4, Informative)
And he did say those things. No one physically prevented his free speech. He's being held after the fact for psychological evaluation. On the other hand they could have held him on criminal charges as most states have laws against credible threats of violence.
The courts do not have a lot of historical precedent for freedom of speech clause of the US constitution until after WWI. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes has the quote most relevant to this situation: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." I think this legal basis is still mostly current, so law enforcement would need to only prove a "clear and present danger" even if the person is deemed to be sane.
There's also the issue of what if the person is insane. I don't know the legal history here but certainly there has been a long history of of forced hospital commitments and evaluations for those who are judged to be insane, as they are said to be a danger to themselves and others, and very often the only evidence of mental illness is what the patient says. Is this a free speech issue or not?
Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good job. You are right. We can't legally prosecute you for being a douchbag, but even if we can't prosecute you for the speech itself, If you yell fire in a crowded theater with the intent of harming others, you can still be tried for reckless endangerment and, should the worst happen, voluntary manslaughter or murder.
You've managed to completely overlook what a fire in a crowded theater actually meant at the time that the phrase was coined. Let's just say that we have these things called "fire exits" in theaters now because theater fires used to be so gruesome. Holmes' 1919 opinion was written a mere 16 year after 600 people died in the Iroquis theater fire, and six years after 73 people died in Calumet, Michigan due to exactly the conduct you advocate. At the time, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater was a guaranteed way play on popular fears and to ensure that large numbers of people died. Congrats on holding the moral low ground.
In addition, you've utter neglected the fact that people packed in tightly do not behave in the same way as people packed loosely, irrespective of their intentions. If you have a hundred tightly packed people in a narrow hallway so much as casually lean forward all at one time, the people in the front are going to be under immense force. (If you think that the inevitable trampling someone to death is any one person's fault, you are an idiot and a bastard.) That this principle is still true today is evident in the 2003 Station Nightclub Fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island.
You have as much as admitted that people are predictable, and if you think that hurting people to emphasize that fact is acceptable, you deserve no better.
Re:stop bringing up the bullshit argument! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:you can't yell fire in a movie theater (Score:5, Interesting)
Me: Meditating in a holding cell (yes, I was in one, and later acquitted)
Officer: "What the fuck are doing you STUPID FUCKING son of a bitch!" [not a question]
Me: Cease posture, face wall and ignore.
Officer: I'll crack your fucking skull open you piece of shit. Fucking kung fu asshole. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU"RE DOING in MY CELL?"
ME: Preparing for pain, but not terribly concerned. Remaining silent and compliant.
You might be interested to learn that several years later -- it did take several years of not only threats, but physical assaults -- he was fired. But it took media attention and persistent effort from many people. Being an outspoken advocate of fairness, with good but often mistaken or resented intentions, I have encountered worse and suffered minor injuries from officers. An acquaintance who was a student at Ringling Art School was beaten by the same officer, for nothing more than uttering the word "corruption". It really is no joke that the distribution of law has grave discrepancies. It generally takes experience or a victimized loved-one to understand it. But there's always research, which offers a sore abundance of examples.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. /quote
No. This isn't censorship. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a mentally unstable trained killer making death threats. Next.
Congratulations (Score:4, Insightful)
Not decapitating anyone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Horrible conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm extremely pro-privacy but even this is ridiculous. I don't care who you are or who your friends might be - if one of them starts talking some crazy conspiracy, murderous shit and he's an ex-marine (and probably either has or has access to several weapons), please please please seriously call the police about it.
Re:Horrible conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally. Free speech is only for saying pleasant stuff, or for saying murderous stuff when you're part of a viral marketing campaign.
Crazy Talk (Score:2, Funny)
"Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
Don't want an extended psych evaluation? Don't threaten people on the internet.
The real crime (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Axes?
detaining people with whom they disagree? Hah! (Score:2)
How many thousands and thousands fulminated and vituperated in the most horrible manner against Bush?
How many were thrown in jail?
Re:detaining people with whom they disagree? Hah! (Score:5, Informative)
Quite a few: about 1800 during the 2004 Republican convention, for example. Many of those were cases where the cops arrested people and dropped the charges a few days later because they had no evidence whatsoever of any sort of crime, but others were charged and jailed. The Bush years also saw the introduction of sonic weapons, Total Information Awareness, and lots of other repression tactics. And yes, the Obama administration has done much the same thing in going after Occupy protesters.
Basically, when it comes to civil liberties, neither the Bush nor the Obama administration have much if any regard for them, and both had the full support of their respective parties' congressional delegation. If you want to support civil liberties, you should support organizations like the ACLU and vote for a candidate that actually supports civil liberties, like Gary Johnson (L) or Jill Stein (G).
A couple things... (Score:5, Informative)
This link was presented on a message board I frequent: Update: Former Marine Arrested by FBI for Facebook Posts!! [ronpaultribune.com]
The "threatening to decapitate military officials" in the summary seems, as far as I can tell, to be a conflation of two separate Facebook posts he made: 1) "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads" (which are apparently lyrics from a song) and 2) "This is part where I tell the Federal Government to go fuck itself. This is the part where I tell Generals, training our young med to fight Americans, I am coming for you. The Veterans will be with me."
The latter is probably what caught the government's attention.
As to "his Facebook page was reportedly private", also from the summary, a number of his posts were shared by people on his Friends list. If it's true that his page was private, it's very likely that the word got out through this sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a feeling it was this particular FB account that got their attention. His wall is free for anyone to peruse:
http://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub?sk=wall [facebook.com]
Their attention? Doesn't take much (Score:5, Interesting)
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors1.png [eccentrici...gency.info] [image]
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors2.png [eccentrici...gency.info] [image] | This visitor showed up hours before my youtube account was terminated with no prior warnings or violations - Just terminated, period. Then they nixed my Google (gmail, webmaster, etc.) account shortly after.
That's a slim example of the "attention" I've had at my own website. Some are bots, and some are not, but between fusion-centers [wikipedia.org] and other profilers, a lot more has their attention than one would (or should) reasonably expect. The new security bureaucracy is Big Business and there just aren't enough angry brown people with bombs to justify the affronts to our liberties otherwise. Where the enemy is not, the enemy will be created. Just look at all the post 9-11 terror plots "foiled" by the FBI; they've been primarily cultivated from sub-stupid imbeciles hand-picked from the pinnacles of ineptitude.
We need security. People will continue going berserk. There are dangers. But it is NOT security we're getting. They ( Authoritaria) behave as if their sole passion is to protect society and make people cozy and safe, yet they think not twice before scooping human fodder for strange wars, , employing sock puppets, defiling education, tainting the media [wikipedia.org], feeding horrendous penal institutions, and severely tampering with things like foreign nations and our own economy.
It's just fine to have faith in government. But hold their feet to the fire and scrutinize the hell out of them, lest faith become dogma. It would appear -- in recent handling of transparency -- that government currently has a strong preference for the latter.
Private Facebook page (Score:2)
Whether the Facebook page is private or not is irrelevant, his friends reported him to the authorities and easily could have shown them the Facebook page.
I'm not sure I see anything in this story that makes me worry about civil liberties, it's just an unusual news story.
Facebook Policy States (Score:2)
that any threats such as this discharged marine made will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. That's right, the Government doesn't have to spy or even pay for the information as Facebook gives the heads up to the government anytime this happens. Simply put, if you want to rant in private, then god damn well do it in private and not on the fucking internets.
Re: (Score:3)
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors1.png [eccentrici...gency.info]
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/wp-content/uploads/visitors2.png [eccentrici...gency.info] | This visitor showed up right before my youtube account was terminated with no prior warning or violations. Just terminated, period. Then they nixed my gmail account shortly after.
That's a small sample of the visitors I've had at my own website. Some are bots (AI), and some are not. But
One of his buddies probably told. (Score:3)
Not as big a deal as you'd think. Even years after being out of the US Army, i get phone calls asking about my mental well-being. They seem to take good care of their own, as if the government still feels possessive or responsible for an in-active veteran. It's terrible if a civilian goes batshit insane and kills people. If a Marine goes batshit insane it becomes an event that books are written about.
Re:One of his buddies probably told. (Score:5, Funny)
So.. how are you feeling?
Facebook and "private" -- not necessarily. (Score:3)
It is entirely possible that something similar happened here, no matter how private his postings were.
Terrorist? (Score:3)
~/terrorist/fucked up|scary/gi
Home of the brave... It's time to give back your land to the actual Braves you took them from, or change the damn anthem: "Land of the Paranoid, and the Home of the Terrified"
Re: (Score:3)
There are nowadays many countries with special laws on how to deal with "terrorists".
A "normal criminal" can be held without charge for a few days, a "terrorist" can be held without charge (well, they're called terrorist which should be a charge in itself) for weeks or more.
A "normal criminal" has all kinds of rights, a "terrorist" loses many of those rights, just for being suspected of terrorism.
This man did something the government didn't like, which they possibly don't have a specific law for or just don
The government doesn't have to snoop on FB. (Score:3)
FB bots already troll for illegal content and if something is spotted, it's forwarded to "the man."
There was something about this here not too long ago, but I can't be arsed to look it up.
1. Don't be stupid and post potentially illegal/threatening stuff to your FB page, whether you think it's private or not. It's not. Read your privacy policy. Act as if FB is some weird version of usenet and you'll be fine. Also, if you are bent on revolution, no revolution ever really got started by doing the organizing in public. At least not at first.
Thus sayeth the FB privacy policy:
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=+322194465300 [facebook.com]
2. See 1. And if you still don't understand it, keep reading 1 until you do.
--
BMO
Mental health issue (Score:5, Informative)
This has long been a problem in the western world. In Europe, if someone seemed crazy, in the 1800s it was a popular way to get rid of him if he was the only person in line ahead of you for inheritance (see for example, Prince Ludwig of Bavaria). In America, we had asylums with power to keep anyone who was deemed to be crazy. The administrators had a lot of power in these places, and eventually it was shown that doctors were incompetent at distinguishing sane people from insane people [wikipedia.org]. A lot of hospitals got closed at that point.
In case anyone cares, here is the law [virginia.gov] that will allow him to be locked up, in case any lawyer wants to comment:
a mental health professional can decide to issue a temporary detention order if "it appears
He threatened harm, the law lets him be locked up.
Re: (Score:3)
If a trained health care worker can't distinguish between sane and insane, how could a jury of randomly picked people do this?
The jury will listen - like in all trials - to the evidence put forward to them by witnesses, and in this case this will be expert witnesses: those exact health care workers who personally evaluated an individual. And these experts will give their expert opinion on the case, just like they would do without jury. And it's not that a jury will go against expert advice I may assume.
And... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if they did nothing, and the guy wound up shooting up a movie theater, people would be crying "Why did no one do anything? The signs were CLEAR!"
Crazy people. WTF ya gonna do with 'em?
Maybe law enforcement here will amaze us all and actually get the guy some help.
Oh, *nearly* typed that with a straight face!
Damned if they do damned if they don't (Score:3)
You pick the headline you prefer;
Ex-Marine Forcibly Held for Psychiatric Evaluation
or
Officials Knew of Ex-Marine's Mental Instability Before Killing Spree and Did Nothing
Personally, I prefer the former. At worst a sane ex-marine goes through a few days of evaluation and is released. At best an ex-marine spiralling down into a psychotic episode gets the help he needs and recovers.
They told me (Score:3)
They told me if I voted for McCain, the government would be perusing facebook posts and throwing those they don't like in mental institutions... and they were right!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
I know everyone thinks that this is a punitive move, but at least on the face of it, the psych detention is for diagnostic purposes. We put people in this situation routinely when they are 1) an danger to themselves or others (likely the rationale here) or 2) gravely disabled (think sitting in the middle of the freeway).
From the limited info presented, it may well be the most reasonable thing to do. Perhaps he's just blowing off steam. Perhaps he is having a bad day.
Or perhaps he has a couple of fully auto M-16s, a couple thousand rounds of ammo, a couple of grenades and maybe some other souvenirs of the Middle East. It's a difficult balance between letting people do what they feel is right and allowing mass murder, even if it's justified to some people's minds.
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they had done nothing and we had a few dead generals, I predict people would have shouted "how come no one saw the signs and intervened?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There was a butt bomber about 3 stalls down from me in the shit house last week. He ran in and rendered the entire shit house uninhabitable for several hours. I'm sure it was a weapon of mass destruction he used. Not sure what was with the screaming though....perhaps trying to intimidate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you read a chunk of his wall (which is open to anyone to read on FB) you'll find enough to convince you that perhaps he should talk to a psychiatrist.
http://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub?sk=wall [facebook.com]
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, but this page looks pretty normal to me. 9/11 truth and chemtrails and so fourth. If they were going to lock up everyone with a page like this, it would be tens or hundreds of thousands of people. I don't see a good reason to believe he is mentally disturbed, or that he is going to act out. His detention is alarming, to say the least. Can the Feds now use mental instability as a excuse to lock up anyone they want?
Re: (Score:3)
Can the Feds now use mental instability as a excuse to lock up anyone they want?
Although the practice gained infamy by it's use in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries against dissidents, it's nothing new in the US either, though not nearly so widespread, blatant, or partisan. There have been recent efforts in the US to hugely broaden the definition of what constitutes a "mental illness or disorder" that prohibits ownership/possession of firearms by opponents of individual gun rights, particularly since the recent shootings.
It would not surprise me in the least to learn that such tactics
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
There's clearly a blurry line here trying to distinguish crazed ranting from actual threats. I'm definitely opposed to the idea of "thoughtcrime", but if someone is making real threats that they're in a position to carry out (and I'm guessing an ex-Marine is more qualified than most to do so) it makes sense to step in before real harm is done. But that's also contingent on us being able to actually make a realistic distinction between blowing off steam and actually planning violence. We tend to be overcautious here, but that's societal trends at work.
pattern in mass shootings (Score:3)
With many mass shootings, it turns out people knew the perpetrator had mental issues, but nothing was done about it. Now that somebody is doing something about it, that's not right either. shaking my head
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, generals just do the dirty work the politicians tell them to.
The politicians themselves, OTOH... Yeah, a few less of them wasting our oxygen, and one unbalanced whack-job in prison - I'd call that a net positive all around!
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
You're obviously trolling, but I'll bite
If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.
Now, do the police have a right to investigate? Absolutely. Do they have any right to detain the man? Absolutely not. Unless they find something during a legal investigation. If that sounds like nuttery to you, then I would say your the nut.
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:4, Informative)
p>
Now, do the police have a right to investigate? Absolutely. Do they have any right to detain the man? Absolutely not.
Actually, detention of suspects at the onset, during and after an investigation is common and not unconstitutional within limits. From TFS, this sounds like a pretty routine psych detention. I've had a friend detained on at least 2 occasions for psych evaluations, though in fairness he was committing trespassing crimes both times.
Re: (Score:2)
Here it comes. "B .. b ... but anyone should be free to say anything any time" in 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1...
You are. You are also responsible for the repercussions.
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
So we stop a professionally trained killer in his tracks after indicating that he might be a mentally imbalanced homicidal maniac, and that makes us "slaves"?
I think people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Off with their heads!" - the Red Queen, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
That's from 1865. Doesn't sound very freedom related to me, so the whole "freedom" thing must be new. OTOH, C L Dodgson didn't get thrown in jail for what he wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Funny)
Not so unusual - as earlier posters mentioned, axe-fighting is part of Army Basic Training.
Please refer to Army Operations manual FM-17, section 2.3.9 - Providing Fair Notice of Initiation of New American Revolution, and section 5.70.7 - Decapitating Superior Officers with Lumberjack Implements.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what to say about this. As cool as that would be if it were true, it still seems awfully impractical. Besides, wouldn't fair notice need to be in the form of some kind of new declaration of independence? I doubt a Facebook status update would be formal enough (maybe in a few years, but a tweet would be more appropriate in that case).
Re: (Score:3)
So is charging into a showing of The Dark Knight Rises with smoke bombs and guns. Especially with soldiers who have seen combat, there is a real and very unfortunate risk that they will come unhinged and start killing people randomly. It happens in wartime scenarios all the time, and it has been known to happen afterwards as well.
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
The flaw in your argument is that he wasn't just "arrested, detained, forced to undergo psychological treatment."
He was arrested, detained, and forced to undergo a psychological evaluation. Psychological treatment is pending the results of the psychological evaluation. It's not like some beat cop or FBI agent is permitted to perform the psychological evaluation. If we permitted law enforcement agents to declare people insane, I would have a serious problem with that. But that's not what's happening. He's being evaluated by a professional, and despite my disdain for psychologists, at least it's someone who has a clear responsibility and training to remain as objective as possible. If the shrink the cops take this guy to claims he needs psychological treatment, then he should probably be forced to undergo it.
Insanity is a tough issue, especially concerning cases where it conflicts with one's liberties, but I'm not cynical enough to think law enforcement acted improperly in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
It should also be noted that he doesn't own any guns, which doesn't seem to follow the pattern of a psychopath about to commit mass murder.
But does he own an axe?
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Your lords and masters prefer it when you don't talk about anything freedom related; you're all slaves, you will never be free, why can't you accept that?
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
As long as it's just fantasizing it is talk only .
Have any other actions to confirm a crime? Then arrest and charge for the crime (ah, right, I forgot: linking to locations on internet may be a crime in US, not need for a real-life action against somebody).
Have other signs of mental imbalance? Then see how you can offer medical treatment (oh, right, I forgot... universal medical care in US is seen as the most evil thing there can be...God forbids that even veterans, who lost their health for their country, are to benefit of medical care free of charge).
Rate me flamebait, but here's my sincere opinion: this is coming from the dystopian saga of the "Weird Planet America"... beat me if I can rationally understand it
(or am I batshit crazy? Will one come to arrest me for it?)
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Informative)
" Then see how you can offer medical treatment "
That's what they were doing. He wasn't arrested, he was detained for psychiatric treatment. In the U.K. there's a handy verbified noun for this - 'sectioned'. I dunno if there's something equivalent in U.S. English. I think most jurisdictions allow for the forcible confinement of people who clearly have dangerous mental problems but refuse to be treated voluntarily - there's a demonstrated need for this, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Veterans do have free access to Veteran Administration hospitals and clinics to receive free care to treat any conditions that result from their service. You can get pretty much any condition treated, except dental unless service connected, and they will happily bill your insurance, if you have any. If you don't then you will end up paying a copay, at the least. If you are indigent, and the standards are pretty loose on that, you don't have to even pay that, even for medications. Psychiatric co
Re: (Score:3)
I think people like you need to learn the definition of words like "slave" that you throw around so easily.
There is actually a silver lining to this story.
Threatening to chop off the heads of generals on a private Facebook page seems to be much more effective at getting yourself mental health services than telling everyone who would listen that you're just going to kill yourself [rense.com].
"'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"
It seems to me like he was wildly optimistic in his paranoia. Most paranoids would have just said: "The government is coming for me. Men will be a my door soon to pick me up to take me away. "
Re: (Score:3)
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
Yes. It is. Fantasizing about doing anything is permitted by freedom of thought; fantasizing verbally is permitted by freedom of speech. These freedoms exist to protect the thought and speech we're uncomfortable with, not the thought and speech we're comfortable with; the latter needs no protection.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, now...1.....2.....3....
Duh?
Does anyone out there think they haven't been doing this for awhile? Who in their right mind doesn't think posts on FB are monitored, logged and evaluated?
Excuse me...someone is knocking at my door kind late....err......NO CARRIER
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cue the 1st amendment nuts (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Seems like the truthers are trying to make a st (Score:5, Informative)
You're the one who said Facebook Page with a capital p, the quote didn't. The original sentence could refer to anywhere on Facebook's site. Now if the government was doing anything illegal, you wouldn't expect them to be blatant about it would you? They'd of course have some sort of excuse, some sort of explanation as to where the lead came from. We already know Facebook monitors all "private" communication, they've admitted as much when identifying a guy trying to groom girls. Of course that probably means a ton of other conversations gets flagged and looked at, without you ever knowing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Facebook also has an agreement to look for possible terrorists, drug deals and whatever else the government might have an interest in knowing. Nothing you say there should be treated as private, ever.
Re:Seems like the truthers are trying to make a st (Score:5, Informative)
There didn't need to be any monitoring, his wall was left for anyone to read.
http://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub?sk=wall [facebook.com]
Re:Seems like the truthers are trying to make a st (Score:5, Interesting)
Admittedly, I only read TFS, not TFA, but TFS says that his wall was private. If that's true, maybe one of his friends turned him in.
I guess an interesting test would be to create a small group of fake FB accounts (from different IPs), friend them all with each other, then start posting a bunch of crazy conspiracy stuff and threats to assassinate various political figures. For the "person" making the real threats, set their address to be one of your neighbors. Since no real people (only your fake sock poppets) can see any of this stuff, if you see a SWAT team show up at your neighbors' house, then we can surmise that Facebook does indeed allow the government to monitor private communications there.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, nothing like the loonies over here...
Re:Wanna read more about Illuminati ? (Score:5, Funny)
I miss the old slashdot of years gone by. Yeah, we still had loonies back then -- and they were the real, frothing, batshit insane type, too. The kind that were fun to read -- but at least back then, most of them had been driven over the edge by trying to read sendmail.cf (If you haven't done it, I wouldn't recommend it. It's a lot like Lovecraft's Necronomicon, with line-noise icing) .
Re: (Score:3)
Well, as an ex-Marine he's had better training in wreaking havoc
I'm very afraid. But not of him. I'm afraid of people who will use ability as an argument or justification to trample first amendment rights.
The guy was detained for psychological evaluation, which implies that there's a possible danger to others, but also to the guy himself. Also, based on some of the posts above, the content is still viewable by the public, so I don't see the breach in the First Amendment here. No-one's stopping him saying what he wants to say, they just want to make sure he's not going to do anything stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
"they just want to make sure he's not going to do anything stupid."
Except the law isn't supposed to be applied until after physical action has happened. Preventive detention is basically a civil rights issue and proof that the 1st amendment/bill of rights is in the toilet. He hasn't harmed anyone and having a big mouth isn't illegal otherwise most politicians, executives, talking heads, etc. would have been put to death by now.
How long till it becomes "we noticed you disagreed
Re:Seems like the truthers are trying to make a st (Score:4, Interesting)
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.'"
His knowledge in weapons and demolition is not the worry, his repeated calls for violence coupled with the testimony of one of his friends who brought his behavior to light is the reason he is being evaluated. If Jared Loughner had posted his crazy rantings on facebook, called multiple time for violence, and his friends reported his strange and dangerous behavior to the authorities and nothing was done, the people that ignored it would and should be held accountable. The crazy tin foil shit has nothing to do with why he was detained the violent rants do. You infrastructure knowledge and any tinfoil hat ideas you might have will not put you on watch, when blowing up bridges becomes a recurring theme in your rants and people close to you start to think you are serious and report it you will get a visit from the authorities.
Re: (Score:3)
Businessmen are always trying to make military analogies. Makes them feel macho and in charge, I suppose. There is, however, a clear difference between some coke addled suit and an ex-marine with a bunch of weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
Businessmen are always trying to make military analogies. Makes them feel macho and in charge, I suppose. There is, however, a clear difference between some coke addled suit and an ex-marine with a bunch of weapons.
One is likely a psychopath, the other is a veteran exercising a right he swore to uphold.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair, "heads will roll" in the context of "We're going to fire the people responsible" and "heads will roll" in the context of "... off the end of this battleax I'm sharpening as it turns red with their blood" are two completely different kinds of posts. The former isn't so bad (bad for the people losing their jobs, but not grossly illegal in and of itself). The latter is scary and bears looking into. If the person turns out to not only have the know how (ex-marine) but also the mindset (conspiracy
Re: (Score:2)
Did they find a battle axe in his possession? If not, it was probably metaphorical.
Oh please (Score:2)
That is loony cynicism. In your hypothetic example, "heads will roll" does not mean violence.
Unless you are gunnying for +3 Funny and I didn't get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Facts? You are joking, Right? Remember, this is /.