Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jailed for facebook comments, marine sues

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jailed for facebook comments, marine sues

    It happens in China routinely. It frequently happened in the old Soviet Union. Undoubtedly in North Korea, although generally there’s no one around to witness it. But in the United States? It happens here, too, apparently.

    A lawsuit has been filed by officials with the Rutherford Institute on behalf of a Marine who was jailed and held for the comments he made on Facebook – comments that expressed a dissatisfaction with the present direction of the U.S. government.

    According to officials at Rutherford, the civil rights action names as defendants members of law enforcement and the government who were involved in last year’s episode where Marine veteran Brandon Raub, 27, was arrested by a swarm of FBI and Secret Service and forcibly detained in a psychiatric ward for a week.

    His crime was posting controversial song lyrics and political views on Facebook, the institute reported.

    In one of his postings, he cited the evil in the world.

    “The United States was meant to lead the charge against injustice, but through our example not our force. People do not respond to having liberty and freedom forced on them,” he wrote.

    He was released later when a judge stepped in and concluded the prosecution’s case against Raub was “so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.”

    The lawsuit asks for damages for Raub for the attack he endured. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va., and claims Raub’s seizure and detention were part of a plan executed by the Obama administration called “Operation Vigilant Eagle.”

    That, the institute explains, was a federal program to do surveillance on military veterans who express views critical of the government.

    Institute attorneys claim the attempt to label Raub as “mentally ill” and authorities’ efforts to involuntarily commit him into custody was intended to silence his criticism of the government. However, they explain the strategy also violated Raub’s First and Fourth Amendment rights.

    “Since coming to Raub’s defense, The Rutherford Institute has been contacted by military veterans across the country recounting similar incidents. In filing a civil suit against government officials, Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to take issue with the manner in which Virginia’s civil commitment statutes are being used to silence individuals engaged in lawfully exercising their free speech rights,” the organization said.

    “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,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

    “Brandon Raub is not the first veteran to be targeted for speaking out against the government. Hopefully, by holding officials accountable, we can ensure that Brandon is the last to suffer in this way.”

    It was last Aug, 16 when Chesterfield police, Secret Service and FBI agents arrived at Raub’s home and asked to talk with him about his Facebook posts.

    “Like many Facebook users, Raub, a Marine who has served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, uses his Facebook page to post song lyrics and air his political opinions. Without providing any explanation, levying any charges against Raub or reading him his rights, law enforcement officials handcuffed Raub and transported him to police headquarters, then to John Randolph Medical Center, where he was held against his will,” the Institute reported.

    “In a hearing on Aug. 20, government officials pointed to Raub’s Facebook posts as the reason for his incarceration. While Raub stated that the Facebook posts were being read out of context, a Special Justice ordered Raub be held up to 30 more days for psychological evaluation and treatment.”

    When Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett, however, found out about the case, he ordered it dismissed and Raub released, because there was no evidence of a case.

    In asking the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to acknowledge the harm done to Raub and to rectify the violation of his First, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights, Institute attorneys are requesting that Raub be awarded damages.

    The 14-page complaint describes Raub’s “baseless incarceration” and said it violated his free speech, due process and other rights.

    The complaint claims the arrest was a “pretext” that was orchestrated to “silence Raub’s speech critical of the government by subjecting him to involuntary commitment.”


    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    sounds like the beginning of scandal 1001 for Obama and his nut riders.
    Has every earmark of his doings thus far

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't know the details of the arrest/trial/investigation, but it seems that was the issue.

      However, service members need to know that they can't say whatever they want, whenever they want. We do not have the same freedoms as everyone else. Article 134 is a mother fucker.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yep, if you get hit with a 134, you're as good as done.
        "Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."
        "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

        Comment


        • #5
          It goes even deeper than that. My UCMJ (MCM) is on my work computer, but 134 is insanely long covering tons of issues...to include, "disloyal statements" and "conduct unbecoming" which could both be used in this case.

          Comment


          • #6
            What a bunch of dickheads.

            Comment


            • #7
              What does UCMJ have to do with anything? The guy in the story was a veteran and arrested by FBI / secret service, not by the military. He was also being held for psychiatric reasons, not for violating UCMJ.

              I found a bunch of conflicting information about this story too.. One source said 2 FBI agents showed up and that Secret Service arrested him, another said Chesterfield Police arrested him.. IDK, bunch of weird stuff with this one.

              Comment


              • #8
                Bingo. UCMJ doesn't apply. This was an illegal and unconstitutional action to shut someone up
                I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                Comment


                • #9
                  You two should read my first sentence in this thread.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by exlude View Post
                    I don't know the details of the arrest/trial/investigation, but it seems that was the issue.

                    However, service members need to know that they can't say whatever they want, whenever they want. We do not have the same freedoms as everyone else. Article 134 is a mother fucker.
                    I did read this. He's not a service member he's a veteran. UCMJ doesn't apply otherwise I'd have been demoted and locked up repeatedly by now.
                    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ...
                      Originally posted by exlude
                      I don't know the details of the arrest/trial/investigation, but it seems that was the issue.
                      Originally posted by exlude
                      arrest/trial/investigation, but it seems that was the issue
                      Originally posted by exlude
                      but it seems that was the issue
                      I meant the UCMJ as an aside. Although, now thinking about it, I wonder if he was still in IRR.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by exlude View Post
                        You two should read my first sentence in this thread.
                        That sentence makes no sense:

                        "I don't know the details of the arrest/trial/investigation, but it seems that was the issue."

                        It seems what was the issue?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chili View Post
                          That sentence makes no sense:

                          "I don't know the details of the arrest/trial/investigation, but it seems that was the issue."

                          It seems what was the issue?
                          Need an English lesson? It's a compound sentence with the pronoun "that". Pronouns are typically replacements for nouns already used in the sentence or current discussion. The nouns in that sentence are the subject, the direct object, and a prepositional phrase. We can rule out the preposition, as it just modifies the direct object. So "that" is either targetting "I" or "details". It would be weird if I considered myself to be a part of the issue, so maybe that is why it strikes you as making no sense. Logically, we must arrive at the conclusion that "that" refers to the "details", specifically, the "details of the arrest/trial/investigation".

                          As opposed to the actually charge, considering he was never charged. And of course, that first sentence was to preclude the aside that was to follow. That is, that the aside was not the issue.

                          I'm fucking around before you get all mad...mostly

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by exlude View Post
                            Need an English lesson? It's a compound sentence with the pronoun "that". Pronouns are typically replacements for nouns already used in the sentence or current discussion. The nouns in that sentence are the subject, the direct object, and a prepositional phrase. We can rule out the preposition, as it just modifies the direct object. So "that" is either targetting "I" or "details". It would be weird if I considered myself to be a part of the issue, so maybe that is why it strikes you as making no sense. Logically, we must arrive at the conclusion that "that" refers to the "details", specifically, the "details of the arrest/trial/investigation".

                            As opposed to the actually charge, considering he was never charged. And of course, that first sentence was to preclude the aside that was to follow. That is, that the aside was not the issue.

                            I'm fucking around before you get all mad...mostly
                            I'm not mad, but have better reading comprehension than most and it made no sense to me.

                            I mean, seriously, I scored like 99th percentile in that shit. I also passed the DLAB and the Border Patrol's language aptitude exam, which leads me to believe I am pretty good with language..

                            By your explanation, you are saying that I could restate the sentence as: "It seems the details of the arrest/trial/investigation was the issue." Which still leaves me wondering what you are talking about..

                            Explicame motherfucker, I guess I'm just stupid!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by exlude View Post
                              I meant the UCMJ as an aside. Although, now thinking about it, I wonder if he was still in IRR.
                              Interesting point, but are you still subject to the UCMJ if in IRR and not under muster orders?

                              Shit, I had to google that out of a constant curiosity of the irrelevant:

                              What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MI I was under the impression that the UCMJ only applied to servicemembers on Active Duty or Reservists/Guardmen called to Active Duty/ for EAD or drill functions. How does this relate to people in the IRR who are not on active duty and do not...


                              Seems that the answer is no, but there is clearly some debate.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X