Former Marine Brandon Raub Sentenced To Up To 30 Days In Psych Ward Over Facebook Posts

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by milkyway12
I don't think he understands that he voluntarily gave up some of his rights when he gave his oath and signed on the dotted line.

The military is not a place for free will and theory, especially for enlisted. The Military is a Machine.

If you don't want to be part of that Machine, then don't sign up.

edit on 21-8-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Maybe a young naive Brandon wanted to serve his country and family? Anything wrong with that?

Maybe as he aged and got wiser to what the military is REALLY like and what its REALLY about...he had a paradigm shift and had some changed perspectives and priorities...Anything wrong with that?

The notion that a person cannot change their mind ever is ludicrous and one that promotes a stagnant perspective that never changes regardless of the circumstances...and this is exactly why our soldiers will continue to fight meaningless wars for politicians and their greed...its called brainwashing, you no longer think for yourself, someone else with more stripes/bars does that for you...

Maybe he had a change of heart and decided he wanted to keep true to his beliefs and not sell himself out to the highest political bidder...

And that can't happen!

-Rusty the coach

reply to post by freakjive


how much you wanna bet he "suicides out" whille he he is in there

Another day, another slap in the face to Americans and our rights.

Originally posted by Sly1one
The ironic thing about all this too, is that the government basically just validated all his "terrorist" like accusations about it...that whole their taking your freedoms and need to be dismantled thing sounds a little less radical when the government proves you right by doing exactly what they are being accused of...

Sly brings up an interesting point, if the state wasn't Mr. Raubs enemy before then it definitely is now. What were they expecting to do, "cure" him of his disagreement?

Whose next? Me? You?

I used to work in psych and it has been used for political oppression/suppression in the past. We have to ALWAYS be mindful that that particular system is vulnerable to misuse for political reason.

One of the problems in the mental health system is that sometimes the people with all the authority aren't all that cool, or hip. Here's an example - we admitted a young man once who kept saying he was losing his religion. They thought he was crazy. He was just drunk singing REM.

Another patient I recall got into Echenheart materials. I'm spelling that wrong, I know, but it's a religious group that isn't all that fringe. Well, his very CATHOLIC psychiatrist and a really fundamental MUSLIM psychiatrist decided it was devil worship/cult behavior. I remember since 2 of them were 'in agreement' they ordered ALL his RELIGIOUS materials destroyed, I caught a plane and saw one of those offices in the airport. I stopped in and checked it out, and I was like, OMG I should take this to the ethics board, this isn't 'devil worship.' But I thought, too, what if it were? Shouldn't he have a right to freedom of religion?

Lots of stuff like that. Some patients - it seemed- their commitment was really political. It was obvious too they would NEVER get out unless some judges & power structure changed.

reply to post by Sly1one


One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.....?

I haven't read the law in question, but it strikes me as odd that his next of kin hasn't been given power of attorney. The idea that the State can just snatch you out of your house on the authority of a shrink that you've never spoken to before and hold you indefinitely without some control going back to your family is, frankly, terrifying.

I think this guy is a tad crazy and I wouldn't rule out a tad dangerous. However, that's also exactly what the past month and the infamous DHS memo are about. Pushing it into people's mind that vets who talk about revolution and liberty are dangerous and then reporting them to " the authorities ". With thoughts like " better safe than sorry....." and " the memo said....." or " the guy who shot up that Temple was a vet.....". See something, say something, right?

So is it a correct thought, or the one they want you to think? Or, do they just want you too paranoid to know the difference? The cognative dissonance is setting in and ain't no one immune. Stay frosty and keep your heads low, countrymen.

What the hell is going on here? I just saw all of this. Is America got some form of Gestapo police arresting vets? Am I safe even posting support for this guy from what seems to be a suspect arrest?

Things are getting crazier and crazier in this country and it seems you cannot question anything that our government is doing or has done without facing detainment or worse.

reply to post by freakjive


You can thank the Patriot Act for that. Anything said against the government can be considered a terrorist threat. If you're in the service, your mouth is "owned" by the government. Sounds like we're edging towards a police state to me. Didn't the old Soviet Union prescribe to this same type of intimidation by using their secret police?

reply to post by milkyway12

I don't think he understands that he voluntarily gave up some of his rights when he gave his oath and signed on the dotted line.

This is a common misconception.

You can process out of the military at any time via administrative separation citing conflict of interest (or other grounds). This was much harder to do back when the military was hurting for people - but they can't kick enough people out, these days (and have been consistently raising the physical and intellectual standards for service and lowering high year tenure marks). Each person administratively processed out is one less person that collects 50% of their 36 highest paying months for the next 40+ years (meaning they pay you more in retirement than in active service).

You still have rights. The difference is that the military is far more strict on enforcing the same laws many civilians are subject to, but that are rarely enforced or reported.

The military is not a place for free will and theory, especially for enlisted. The Military is a Machine.

This is only true to a point.

If you're in a tactical situation and you're told to do something - you do it. If you see the order as an unnecessary risk, you should briefly voice your concerns about it, but be willing to obey. People moving in the same direction - even if it's the wrong one - are in a better position to react to their environment than people who lock up and do nothing (or argue amongst each other).

The window for feedback in tactical scenarios is small, but there.

For strategic and policy issues - it's completely different. While the Army and Marines are a little less talkative, you'll find that discussion about the effectiveness of policies is commonly discussed when outside of "this needs to get done right now or people are going to die" situations. Good upper enlisted will often engage in discussion about the logic behind policies or even their own decisions.

Because the lower enlisted, if they wish to advance and assume more responsibility, should be taught some of these things without having to attend the school of hard knocks.

You have ample time, as long as needed, to read, ask, and comprehend your oath and what you are getting yourself into before you give your oath and signature.

People interpret that oath a little differently, though.

I pay close attention to the order in which things are listed. Upholding the Constitution of the United States comes first - be it your oath upon swearing in, the Sailor's Creed, or a host of other creeds stretching the branches.

Then your Commander In Chief, then your lawful orders, etc etc.

So, we swear to uphold the values of a document that twelve individuals with decades of experience and education are appointed to interpret its application to various legal scenarios. And they often disagree.

But it's all kind of moot, since he was already out of active service.

reply to post by WeRpeons

You can thank the Patriot Act for that. Anything said against the government can be considered a terrorist threat.

Not exactly. Though there is a troubling amount of interpretation to be done, there. As it was originally implemented and investigator positions staffed, it was aimed toward identifying operating cells and individuals with a genuinely hostile intent toward citizens and infrastructure.

As time has gone on - people have become more willing to loosen the interpretation.

If you're in the service, your mouth is "owned" by the government.

It kind of depends.

You will not gain many friends in the upper tiers by exposing fraud, being critical of poor leadership or administration, etc. But people like me have a superiority complex and are rather vindictive toward the 'good ol boys' that run the upper echelons on Kool-Ade.

But you can't say things that endanger missions/operations, nor can you slander the service. You can openly criticize things that are going on - but you can't go shooting your mouth off.

Sounds like we're edging towards a police state to me. Didn't the old Soviet Union prescribe to this same type of intimidation by using their secret police?

We're quite a ways away from that. Though I will admit we are trending toward it.

This particular instance, however, is right there on the edge of where we are, presently. Obviously, looking at his facebook page, his mental health can be drawn into question. Further, some of his posts seemed to indicate his intention to do something that, at least in his mind, would have a profound impact on the nation.

I find it a little concerning how the unilateral decision was made to hold him at a mental health facility - I think there were better ways to address this issue. Though it could also be that those methods were exhausted.

But I can see the cause for concern.

Honestly, I don't think he was planning anything violent - but I don't really know him and am not exactly experienced in cases like his.

Originally posted by dayve
Im sure theirs a reason he is in 30 days...

Long enough to begin their experiment with re-education and programming. MK Ultra lite.

Originally posted by g146541
There are several things about this story that scream, "hey look at me, look at me"!!
First is, the gentleman is active duty yes or no?
Is the gentleman being accused of crime, or being looked at for mental weakness?
Is the gentleman being reviewed by civillian court or Military?
And just exactly what did this man do to get so much attention?
Too many things in this scream SETUP!
Why are we being told to watch this, what is the other hand doing?

I think the initial start of all of this is legitimate, and now tptb are using Brandon as the example for what is going to happen to others. Too patriotic and talk about revolution? You're going to the psych ward.

It seems your usual protocol for dealing with Dissent or in the case of those claiming to have seen something the Government doesn't want us to see ....... that is to quickly assassinate the character of the individual in question. To make then appear as quacks or fringe elements of society. To strip the person of any credibility. I think in this case, he might have been a little too close to making a legit point as far as the need to police certain politicians in government.

Same old story, make them appear as crazies........ and then hide the real issue and tie up what loose ends that they had missed.
It's well known by most, that government is out of control, and that fighting the system is nearly futile unless you have the numbers on your side. The truly outraged citizenry. The first step in totalitarian rule is to remove any opposition.... and label them crazies or terrorists or destroy their character. Once the opposition is disposed of, sweeping in and taking over is pretty easily done.

reply to post by milkyway12


Did you miss the part that he is a former Marine? Marines who are still active & speak out against the Govt on FB get discharged, but again, this guy is now a civilian.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Ron Paul has gotten someone in trouble yet again? Please explain. I get you don't support RP but stop making things up

reply to post by Plotus

It seems your usual protocol for dealing with Dissent or in the case of those claiming to have seen something the Government doesn't want us to see

And what did he actually see?

He was posting comments about how Bush has a castle where children are raped 24/7, talking about starting a revolution, and insinuating that he was about to go on some kind of a raid (or... something...) by linking to a Marine recruitment video intended to appeal to SciFi fans and, possibly, the WoW community.

He didn't see anything.

To make then appear as quacks or fringe elements of society. To strip the person of any credibility. I think in this case, he might have been a little too close to making a legit point as far as the need to police certain politicians in government.

Then why haven't they arrested you, me, or the tons of other people who post on internet forums and in Face Book about such things?

It's well known by most, that government is out of control, and that fighting the system is nearly futile unless you have the numbers on your side.

I'm game to play a little.

If this were the case, why would they bother with a single Marine?

Knowing what I know about government and the military - I have a whole host of security vulnerabilities memorized (as does every other veteran) that exist at both policy and individual levels. A single individual with the motivation could really put the hurt on any target of their choosing. Particularly civilian targets that are far easier to survey and catch at vulnerable times (politicians).

Even the local police force is not really trained, equipped, or psychologically prepared to deal with a prior service individual motivated to carry out a violent crime (or a string of them). A single individual could easily keep your average town's police forces pinned, particularly if he was not very concerned about who he killed.

It's also why state militias are a hot topic of debate. These groups are often better equipped than most of our military forces and have the same (or better) training from prior service special operators from multiple branches.

The truly outraged citizenry. The first step in totalitarian rule is to remove any opposition.... and label them crazies or terrorists or destroy their character. Once the opposition is disposed of, sweeping in and taking over is pretty easily done.

Not really.

History shows a different trend. The trend is to identify certain groups of people -within your own population- and identify them as "the problem." This group of people is responsible for all of the troubles your society faces. This group needs to be removed, and I'm the one to lead you to do it.

That's how totalitarian regimes form. What you describe is how they are perpetuated.

question: is this being covered in the MSM?

When people are going to understand that America is run by a corporate dictatorship wake up people, for years here in ATS we have been telling how littler by littler the government in the last few decades have been eroding American rights with bills like the patriot act and many others, that while no affecting the Constitution it gives the government personal powers to come after American citizens anyway it wants whatever the feel out of their arses to come after us.

Well is happening right now look and see what is going on around you.

You could be next.

If you are an American citizen that has serve you country and disagree with the corruption we call government this days you are potential terrorist

Now I am waiting for the FBI gestapo to come and knock my door after all I call the American govenrment a corrupted corporate dictorship.

reply to post by JBA2848


That Stadium looks very similar to the Olympic stadium in London. I think the Government is way out of line with this and any laws it has imposed since 9/11. These laws are for us every day Americans. If they were that worried about Arab terrorist they would not let them walk right over the border every day. Whoever said the gov was doing a good job is obviously ignorant and probably a paid government stooge.

OK, so if you're a government functionary what are the pro's and con's of committing Raub?

Pro;
Dampen online criticism and commentary on Facebook one of the most popular mediums of social interaction.
Get society used to the idea of pre-crime and preventative detention.
Reinforce idea that sharp criticism of status quo is a crime or has criminal intent.
Reinforce idea that military vets are problematic to ill-informed or un-informed citizens.

Con;
Rally independent minded people to Raubs cause.
Call attention to darker aspects of government power over citizenry.
Risk public backlash at heavy handed methods.

I am sure I've missed several more items both pro and con and invite others to add to the list as understanding motivations may shed more light on the reasons behind Raubs detention. Sans any evidence of some kind of clear threat made against someone or himself and the means to carry out a threat it is my understanding that one cannot be held involuntarily more than 72 hours. In my state the exact criteria for involuntary detention of 72 hours is - "demonstrate a willingness to harm yourself or others and have the means to do it"

Lacking any other plausible information it appears that Raub would be a test case by the government to see how far the envelope can be stretched and gotten away with. The message has more or less stayed targeted to a limited audience as it has not gone viral in the MSM, just limited reporting to say it was reported on but not enough to rile the masses. Reinforcement of the idea that vets on the whole are mentally deficient and dangerous and an unprovable but nonetheless dampening of the most strident criticism of governmental policy has occurred which appears to be motivation.

Making an assumption of innocence which is our way, lets say Raub is released and its all declared a mistake based on overzealous complaints by online readers of his postings..............................

Raub has most likely lost his second amendment rights due to involuntary commitment and would have an expensive legal fight to get them restored, Raub most likely will find it difficult to obtain meaningful employment in the future. Basically even if he's found to have done absolutely nothing wrong his life has been negatively changed.

So far as I can tell there is no real negative or downside for the government here unless and until MSM picks this story up in a big way and I have serious doubts thats going to happen.