Quote:
Raub talked about the Illuminati, a shadow organization in which "some of the leaders were involved with the bombing of the twin towers" and the "great amount of evil perpetrated by the American Government." He said people may think he was going crazy, but a "civil war," the "Revolution" is coming.
"I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting."
On July 24, he said he was at a "great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle."
On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them.
On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
On August 14, Raub wrote, "The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it."
On August 15, Raub wrote, "And they will say he said it to the NSA first."
|
http://www.networkworld.com/communit...rrorist-nature
This is always a tough call. What if he had gone postal, then the public would be crying "Why did we not do something when all the signs were there"?
I don't think this was the thought police infringing on a citizens right to state political opinions. The wording of some of his writings would, to a prudent person, indicate the chance that he was intending to take action. All we have are his words that he chose to publish. We can't know if he was joking/venting or whether he was intending on taking the action.
It is a tough call. Where is the line? Who decides where that line is?
We do not live in a peaceful society. We do have individuals who are taking violent actions against citizens. We also have citizens who like to joke/vent on the Internets Tubes.
How much False Positives are we willing to accept for a low number of False Negatives? And who chooses?
My opinion?
I can post on the Internets Tubes that Bush/Obama is a fink; that our congress sucks, and that generally I am really pissed at the current state of our government, that Bachmann is a skanque, and Pelosi is a crook.
All that is, and should be, protected under the First Amendment.
But as soon as I cross "the line" of making threats, that's when, in my opinion, I start moving outside my constitutional rights.
Now the argument can be made about the difference between credible threats and non-credible threats.
The evaluation on the credibility of threats comes after an investigation. Not before.
People have to recognize that threats are being perceived as being credible unless there is clear evidence otherwise. When people post threats on the Internets Tubes, people are taking this seriously and rightfully expect the authorities to investigate.
Now whether the government properly investigated in this specific instance is unknown as I am sure we do not have all the information.
I may, if the facts are ever released, even believe that the government did not investigate this person properly. But I do think that the government has the right and responsibility to investigate people making threats against government people.