176 votes

Ben Swann Reality Check: U.S. Marine Held In A Mental Hospital Against His Will Because Of Facebook Posts

Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at the case of U.S. Marine Brandon Raub who is being held in a mental hospital in Virginia over Facebook posts.

http://youtu.be/wMo6BrDbDQE



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Brandon Raub - Perfect song, Mark Twain

"And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence"

The message being sent is, "Don't dare disturb the sound of silence" re all the issues decorated Marine veteran Brandon Raub did - from 9/11 (questioned by engineers around the world)... to what he was alluding to re the "castle" (a situation discussed openly by Mark Phillips & Cathy O'Brien re a circumstance investigated and supposedly stopped by the Church Commission)... to our questionable monetary system (discussed by many authors of books on the subject and on the pages of Forbes). So I don't get it. Millions of Americans have questioned the same. Why single out him? Why now?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Why? I don't kow why.

Speech to Miners

Now, here is a gold-miner's compliment, and this one is forty-two years old. I remember the circumstances perfectly well. It was the introduction of Mark Twain, lecturer, to an audience of gold-miners at Red Dog, California, in 1866, by one of themselves. It was in a log house, a large school-house, and the audience occupied benches without any back, and there were no ladies present, they didn't know me then; but all just miners with their breeches tucked into their boot-tops. And they wanted somebody to introduce me to them, and they pitched upon this miner, and he objected. He said he had never appeared in public, and had never done any work of this kind; but they said it didn't matter, and so he came on the stage with me and introduced me in this way. He said:

    "I don't know anything about this man, anyway. I only know two things about him. One is, he has never been in jail; and the other is, I don't know why."

- Mark Twain, mining town speech in Red Dog, California, 1908

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

All I can tell you from my

All I can tell you from my personal experence, and call this what you will but do give a quick read.

When or if you are in this position. 1. Do not be combative. 2. Be the most polite SOB in the WORLD. 3. Follow there instruction to the letter. 4. Keep to yourself, don't make friends. 5. Don't offer any information, just answer questions the best you can, and don't add to it.

If you do this, the odds of being released in 3 days improve greatly. Any one of those things above will get you in there for another 30 days. And another 30 days if you do it again, and again, and again. I had a friend in a couple times, one 60 days, the other 120 days. All because he would not follow the rules they set for you there. this is in WA State.

Just be polite, keep to yourself, don't offer any info unless asked, don't make friends, and don't for Gods sake threaten any staff member that is auto 30 days. And yes my friend did..a few times...

Be safe..

Thought Crime

Thought Crime

2 + 2 = 5

Nineteen Eighty-Four.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

with rounding

2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8

2.4 rounds to 2
4.8 rounds to 5

This could backfire

You make a good point about who can detain someone without due process of the law---something I've been thinking about since before Ben Swann's last Reality check where he actually incriminates the obama administration and all who voted to aid al qaeda in Syria. I don't think the NDAA makes this question clear.
How I see it, the real terrorists should be shaking in their boots by now, as they created the way for their own destruction.
Let's say Obama is a terrorist suspect (in whose's mind?) for aiding al qaeda, for Fast and Furious, for Drone striking, for targeting nuclear power plants with a computer virus, bio-terrorism, false flag attempts or many other war criminal activities--who can take him away, the FBI? CIA? Secret Service? I'd be kind of paranoid if I were Obama now. Say The FBI and CIA are the suspects? can the Sheriff, policeman, military officers, national guard or even civilians do the job?? What about foreign officials, if Obama was out of the country? Can they recognize terrorist activities and by-pass any due process of the law. Because when you take away due process, there isn't any process---just kidnapping, like we have here with this marine. I think they could see this backfire---BIG TIME

reminds me of what happened to Igor Letov

Reminds me of what happened to Igor Letov in the USSR. How they found some note inside his house which he wrote saying that some government official wanted him dead, and then they put him in a mental institution and got him hooked on drugs.

Constitution Rights or Constitution Protections

Ben, good job saying constitution protection instead of constitution rights.

The latter conveys the constitution -- a government document, therefore the government -- gives man his rights. This relationship means man is below the people in government, where man rules/owns man, a master-slave relationship.

The former, constitution protection, conveys something is established and cannot be removed and it will be defended. The something is a right, and from deduction it's seen that if the right came not from a man, it came from his humanity, his being alive, alive being the state before birth irrespective to the human's shape. His obtainment of a right from his humanity carries over the value intrinsic, making what comes after the intrinsic right exists is irrefutable, is guaranteed.

So, way to go, Ben.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Ben deserves some ratings

Take a minute to rate Ben's journalistic performance: (You can now login using facebook, linkedin, gmail, WindowsLive or Twitter as well)

http://www.ratethepress.com/TV-Hosts/ben-swann.html

Great idea!

Rate Ben if you can. I really kinda worry that if tshtf, Ben might disappear one day. One of the few people who call it like it is, and more power to his station to let him air these stories.

I called It...

In a post one month ago about chertoff's comments on identifying unstable minds... I wrote:

He's really saying We need to identify people who believe in crazy conspiracies (any theory that contradicts the gov't/media's version) and have these people committed.

What is an unstable mind? If these people are identified without having committed a crime, whats the game plan? Arrest them? Throw them in mental hospitals? Spy on them, making them more paranoid and angry until they do act out?
http://www.dailypaul.com/245855/chertoff-spotting-unstable-m...

There game plans getting easier and easier to predict

Called it you did

The measure of stability is how well one performs under less than ideal circumstances. When someone is wildly enraged by bird poop on their freshly washed car, or verbally assaults someone over some small benign error, it's safe to assume that anything that might be used as a weapon could be seen as potentially threatening. Their volatile behavior over minor stresses should raise reasonable concerns about them in anyone's self-preservation sense, right?

By taking this kind of action against this Marine for stating his views on what he believes are his issues of dire concern, AND by his suggesting that government-level players among us are a looming threat against our liberty's preservation; forces all of us to question whose measure of stability we must choose to follow. The measure given us by this kind of "preemptive" action makes pre-criminals, or thought-criminals, of ANYONE'S vigilant, defensive posture.

Perhaps the blow back from this gross overstepping of their constitutional boundaries might cause a paradigm shift further away from the elitists' prescribed-standard of "stability", and closer to the common sense God gave the majority of us.

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." - 2 Timothy 1:7

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass

meekandmild's picture

Title 42 USC §1983 lawsuit on all government employess involved

Title 42 USC §1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

USC Title 18 §241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

That reads like a basis for a lawsuit against those....

...responsible for Brandon's incarceration.

The arresting officials need to be rounded up and arrested by the local sheriff and put in jail immediately. ALL of them.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

a few people mentioned this on the fox19 site,

so i wanted to bring it up here and see how many people agree or disagree.

In regards to the article, I was told of the old Supreme Court case on shouting fire:
"I remind you of the Supreme Court Justice who (also, long ago) clarified "free speech" by declaring that "You cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater"

and my responce:
"You misinterpreted the verdict of that court case. What you fail to realize is that shouting "Fire" in a theater is not a crime nor is it unconstitutional, however if you do shout fire in a crowded theather, and someone is hurt, it IS a crime and it IS unconstitutional, as you are responcible for those injured by your actions, just the same as if someone tries to rob you, you accidently shoot the robber and shoot a bystander, the robber gets charged with hitting the bystander, even if he didnt pull the trigger.

He hes the right to say anything he wants as many times as he wants, and as long as noone is hurt, he has every right to do so."

As noone has been hurt, the government is violating HIS rights by detaining him against his will, and the government is in violation of the first amendment.

I can understand the confusion, but if you work for the government you need to SERIOUSLY watch how you present yourself. The punishment for violating the rights of a citizen is outlined in the Constitution. Oath of Office is an accountability pledge, by violating it, you commit Purgury and/or Treason.

This is no joking matter, if most officers knew if they failed once they could be excuted, i think many of them would start respecting those they are sworn to protect

Constitutionally-protected speech (shouting "fire")

It's an excellent point as to shouting "Fire" in a theater not in itself being unconstitutional, let alone a crime. Furthermore, in that particular case, were someone then hurt, it apparently would be a crime, but only given the nature of that particular case - with a direct link between cause and effect and also the nature of the circumstance, i.e., the belief in an IMMINENT and SERIOUS danger and our survival instinct to take immediate action to spare our very life. And so, it would all depend! There are other circumstances where it is debatable if the speech is a crime EVEN IF there's a claim that someone was hurt by it. Not only would there need to be a provable cause & effect. People do have free will! If people do something they know is wrong (lie, cheat, steal, injure, kill, etc.) they aren't necessarily exonerated on the grounds that they were influenced by others. So, our speech is constitutionally protected. And EVEN IF someone should claim that what someone said had resulted in a crime being committed against them (or had caused them to cause a crime) - not applicable in the Raub case, that would still need to proven! And, namely, AFTER some crime had been committed. This is a Soviet-style tactic that both punished dissidents and scared others into silence. For good reason it has caused international outrage.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Who endowed a lawyer and a

Who endowed a lawyer and a psychologist with the power to detain a person who hasn't committed a crime? It sounds like the start of a very bad joke.

I know lots of people I think are nuts because they are begging for higher taxes, or to bomb Iran, or they think that a man who died about 2000 years ago can offer them eternal life simply by believing he is divine. Can I just get a law degree or a masters in Psych and have these people locked up because I find their views loathsome?

Locking up a person without formally charging him terrorism.

Involuntary commitment

is the law in most states when a person is deemed to be a danger to himself or others. Mental health professionals are required to warn specific persons when they perceive there is direct threat to them by an unstable individual. That is the law. I could tell you countless examples of families being extremely frustrated with the MH system for NOT exercising in-voluntary commitment, when they believe their relative is in serious jeopardy and their own lives may be in danger. The system errs on the side of freedom as it should.

Involuntary commitment is VERY difficult to get because of the civil rights concerns. It is likely that after the Batman case, the Family Research Council case and the other recent episodes of mentally ill people shooting innocent people, that the government is applying over-caution.

The average run of the mill, harmless lunatic is not in danger of being locked up, although there are obviously abuses of power.

Kevin

I will have to chaulk this up to "clearly things are different where you are from".
In CT involuntary committment is at the discretion of the officer. It is simple - all the cop does is CALL the on-call doctor and they immediately sign off without even getting out of bed. They thin blue line is not so thin in CT. So - yes technically the officer cannot do it - it is the person on the phone(not sure if they even have to be a DR) - who by the way NEVER says no - why - WHY would they? Too many law suits, too much lost billing to the state, etc. etc.

Again - considering I live in a communist state - perhaps it is worse than yours - but at the end of the day my argument is the same - YOU nor I have any right to deny someone else their rights. Sorry to say - but if johny threatens to kill himself, then johny refuses treatement and johny then kills himself - sucks for him and his family - but that my friend is the price of freedom. You cannot have it both ways.

Now if johny is saying he is going to kill someone else - that is a threat and a crime - arrest him, charge him, then if you feel he needs professional help - send him to a doctor. But he MUST be charged with a crime first.

And who would be the "specific person" to be warned here?

To talk about "government" or even "generals" shows generic displeasure, mistrust, etc, and only reflects the thinking of millions of Americans. From news reports, I can only agree that FAMILIES might be frustrated with the system for not protecting an individual from a FAMILY MEMBER who appears to be threatening the well-being and even life of that individual, especially when that family member is a SPOUSE (or ex-spouse) - the cases of Terri Schiavo, Lacy Peterson, Staci Peterson, and Kathleen Savio come to mind. For you to raise that issue is irrelevant to the case of decorated Marine Brandon Raub. And obviously it's not so difficult to get someone involuntary committed - at least once federal officials are involved. (The locals were quick to say, "It wasn't me!") So LET'S err on the side of freedom here, and LET'S expose any abuses of power that occurred. In this case, what happened sounds like what could happen in East Germany, for one. It wasn't so long ago: up until November 9, 1989. Millions of people around the world remember.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Doc

While you've been defending the involuntary commitment of Sgt Raub I've been reading your blog & checked out your book reviews on Amazon. Thanks for all your contributions to the Liberty movement.

Now, I don't think you're going to change any minds here.

I also think it's pretty pathetic to advocate on the side of the State in this matter; maybe you have been too much time in the books?

I encourage you to continue talking to Liberty minded folks, as you have, especially some of the returning veterans you mentioned earlier.

Sgt Raub's thoughts echo--to a degree--just about every Marines' I know.

We are awake; I suggest you stop defending his detainment and start researching the "conspiracies" he was trying to wake people like you to up.

P.S.

http://www.dailypaul.com/250315/ben-swann-reality-check-us-m...

http://www.dailypaul.com/250315/ben-swann-reality-check-us-m...

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
-George Orwell

What if the truth is

What if the truth is something other than what you believe? As a skeptic to mainstream history, you should question everything, even your own understanding and interpretation of things.

People should question the events he referenced but there's no actual evidence that Bush or some wider group of people are involved. Sure there are child abusers in government and the truth of 9/11 is unclear, but it doesn't mean your conclusions are true.

You are young, if you keep working in military or government or politics you will understand the world simply doesn't work the way Alex Jones says it does.

Part is true, but the overall idea that a bunch of people are working consciously towards evil is untrue. In reality, it's a few selfish bad men getting good people to do the wrong thing thinking they are doing the right thing. That's how the world works.

.

I reply to clarify that I mostly agree with you, on this post, regardless of your condescending tone and ignorant accusations--Infowars? Really? When did I bring that into this thread, or any other?

Generalization--what you have chosen to do in your post--is a tool of the weak minded, the MSM & the Government; Men, especially veterans, understand this quite well, having been tools of the evil men that have beset themselves upon us.

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
-George Orwell

Appreciate the advice PDQS

Last comment. My hope is to defend liberty while also challenging the conspiracy-fed ideology that passes for libertarianism. When I first started contributing here I was inspired by the honesty and the commitment to restoring our country - but also freaked out by the weirdness. Others have commented similarly. I am speaking primarily to the 21 year old kids out there that might be lurking and trying to separate the signal from the noise.

Another thought. Why do the moderators here allow pseudonyms? I always thought good netiquette required one to sign his real name and take full responsibility for his comments. Requiring such might limit some of the noise so we can get to the signal.

Finally, all of this focus on rights as opposed to rights and responsibilities, annoys me.

kevinkervick~~~you've been here 8 months? Uh huh...

and you expect me to believe that you are not some planted troll? I daresay you have stretched it to the limit. Having worked for law enforcement, human beings who lie or try to mislead are always figured out by the interrogators, sooner or later, with their very own words and continual talking! It's pretty easy to see through people who lie or mislead, and this last statement of yours is quite revealing to say the least.

In fact, it belies your true feelings from the get-go. "Freaked out by the weirdness"? Give me a break! You've never believed in what Ron Paul has espoused, EVER! As the old Indians used to say, "You speak with forked tongue!" That statement alone revealed to me what you are all about, sir.

Your other comment~~about using real names like in Facebook? All people need to know is what the opinions are out there. Everyone has a "right to privacy", in case you didn't know. If, however, you want to broadcast your name all over the Internet, then, do it. But, imo, Facebook should allow pseudonyms. However, if a person doesn't like to use his real name, then, he doesn't have to sign up for Facebook, either.

Part of free speech is allowing the other people who read Facebook comments, or those who read blog responses to mainstream articles online, quite frankly, is allowing those people the freedom to disregard what they read, or to accept it. You people in government are being duped to believe that the "public" and the "masses" haven't a brain upstairs to save their life. That is what is pathetic, and that is exactly why the evidence has mounted time and again starting with the implications of the "Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Act" started by Congress in 2007, but you wouldn't know about that, would you.

Having a Social Work background, I can also say you need to read Glaser's book, "Reality Therapy". You "say" you want everyone to be "responsible", but you are not respecting other people's "choices" of beliefs, or what they choose to believe in. No one has said you or anyone else has to believe in everything Brandon Raub has posted. Most people believe in some of it, none of it, all of it, or a combination of the above.

I suggest you chill out... or go back to the Cass Sunstein Federal brainwashing mission camp, probably where you came from in the first place...

And on the way out the door

You call for more silencing under the guise of "reaching the youth" and "separating the noise."

Get uncomfortable & grow. Read through all the comments in this thread.

Shows character & thought-process, your calling on the Moderators for censorship. . .

[Previous Post Redacted]

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
-George Orwell

Conspiracy theories abound

Conspiracy theories abound because some of them turn out to be TRUE! Granted, I find myself among the camp that typically sides against conspiracy theories, but I have found some to be well-reasoned and very plausible -- motives, historical precedents, and all!

As to your question about pseudonyms, there are two things that quickly come to mind. One, anonymity is not a crime nor should it become one. Two, when you put your name on the net, government agents can see you detained indefinitely if they don't like what you're saying. At least with a pseudonym, they have to work a little harder to find out who you are (and usually through illegal means, I might add).

To defend involuntary

To defend involuntary commitment for someone with no history of mental health issues because the person is saying something the government finds troubling is scary to me. Even the mentally ill have rights, and in this case there is no evidence of illness. It's not illegal to be "crazy."