Justin Hallman, 16, wanted to show how the United States is turning into a police state. He succeeded all too well in not only receiving an A+ in his American Government class but also allegedly a visit from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) confirming the very premise of his film posted on YouTube (below).
Hallman is a civil libertarian who supports Ron Paul, criticized an array of measures including the National Defense Authorization Act, crackdown on free speech, and attacks on the hacktivist group Anonymous. I have raised many of the same concerns, but I never got the interest that Hallman appears to have generated from the good people at the FBI.
Hallman’s house was promptly visited by two FBI agents, according to Hallman and his mother. The teenager stayed inside the door and refused to answer the door. His mother later called and was told by the agents that “We need to talk to your son.” They came back to the house and said that they wanted the teen to work for the FBI as an informant and spy on others, particularly Anonymous. He says that the agents closely questioned him about his support for Ron Paul as well as a conversation he once had with his teacher about the Illuminati secret society.
I have tried to find a response from the FBI denying the underlying facts of the boy’s account. If this visit occurred, I would have hoped to see a response on the conduct of these agents in allegedly seeking to turn a high school student into an informant or investigating such a film (including apparently interviewing his teachers).
What about her? They are doing the same thing to journalists:
Bron:
That commitment came fast on the heels of the Colorado shooting. I think Doug erred on the side of caution. Pay the guy for his trouble and send him on his way. But I’d still keep an eye on him if I were the cops in Chesterfield County.
All Honorable Men by James Stewart Martin, 1950; Little, Brown and Company
(a pdf file can be found online, but I can’t get the link to post; go to spitfirelist)
mespo:
that guy, Raub, looked a little wild in the video. In my non-professional opinion, I can see why someone might err on the side of caution in this case.
After watching the video I thought differently about what was done. But it is still a cautionary tale about how easy it is to commit people and why it should take more than one or 2 people to be able to do it.
anonymously posted 1, September 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm
The use of the phrase “honorable men” brings this book to mind. It begins with the following dedication:
To my children,
members of a generation
entitled to ask,
“What did you do about it?”
There may come a day when each one of us has to look in the mirror and ask, “What did you do about it?”
=========================
Use your real name. Somebody told me to do that, and I did.
anonymously posted:
“The use of the phrase “honorable men” brings this book to mind.”
************
You can always tell the honorable men: They are the ones who use their names and don’t evade accountability.
anonymously posted:
That’s what the Judge said because the boxes were not checked. Both a social worker and a psychiatrist thought this guy was a threat to himself or others. The best decisions are made with all the facts not just the ones you like.
The use of the phrase “honorable men” brings this book to mind. It begins with the following dedication:
To my children,
members of a generation
entitled to ask,
“What did you do about it?”
There may come a day when each one of us has to look in the mirror and ask, “What did you do about it?”
Just because a rationalization appears in the Washington Post does not mean it isn’t an example of the fallacy of composition and, ergo, automatically suspect logic. That quote is simply another way of assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole when that is simply not the case. To use this line of reasoning to justify trusting an otherwise untrustworthy source is also an inverse appeal to probability (also a logical fallacy) and an obtuse version of the faulty generalization of overwhelming exception (for every one Edwards story the qualifications of thousands of “bat boy” or “demon possesses blender” stories waters down the exception of your example – in this case the Edwards scenario – to the point it loses its utility).
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_circuit_court_orders_brandon_raub_released_dismisses_case_against_m
“Judge Sharrett dismissed the petition for involuntary commitment on the grounds that the petition “is so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.”
anonymously posted:
““Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced or declared unfit for society. ”
*********************
As fate would have it, I have known both Doug Stokes (the special commissioner who handles committments) and Judge Sharrett (the Judge who freed for Raub) more than 20 years. Both are good, honorable men with excellent judgment. (I also know Tony Troy who defended Raub before Judge Sharett o/b/o the Rutherford Institute). Judge Sharrett found Mr. Stokes’ commitment order defective because certain boxes relating to factual allegations had not been checked. I have complete confidence that Doug Stokes would not capriciously commit a person for political reasons. I know my endorsement of Doug is not evidence but quite frankly nothing substitutes for knowing the man, imho.
Tabloid Trash — or Treasure?
by Tom Scocca
Sunday, May 10, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050802092.htm
“The reputable media don’t traffic in that sort of tenuous speculation about people’s lives. They also didn’t traffic in the story of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, until the Enquirer forced them to. This is why “tabloid journalism” is used as a put-down, and why tabloid journalism still exists: No one else does what it does, but in some situations, you need it.”
“‘Regarding “sources’, on occasion the rags get it right:”
The fallacy of composition. Historically the rags got to be known as rags for a reason and that reason was not their sterling fact checking and/or general veracity. Either there is independent verifiable proof of the facts as asserted (as in the Edwards case) or prudence dictates viewing the evidence as presented as coming from historically questionable sources.
For the kids:
http://www.fbi.gov/fun-games
Regarding “sources”, on occasion the rags get it right:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photo-gallery/john-edwards-love-child-scandal
What Gene H. said about sources. The other day someone sourced info from an outfit funded by Richard Mellon Scaife. It was the Michelle Obama “spendthrift” story that shifted from shoes, no I mean planes. I thought it useless to protest. The gentleman had his mind made up.
I have a friend who was in a high school in Miami 6 years ago, wrote some kind of an essay criticizing the war in Iraq and THREE DAYS LATER got a visit from the FBI. They claimed that other students had told them that he had been boasting about a plan to “do something” to the President — a total fiction. He did not get freaked out or intimidated but I think most kids would have.
I noticed the Prof didn’t source this story so I got curious. Upon some lunchtime poking about, it appears this story was originally posted by a Paul Joseph Watson on Alex Jones’ Infowars.com and perpetuated by WND.
As far as veracity goes, ’nuff said.
Did you all hear that Morgan Freeman is dead?
That being said, it is important to remember that better sourced stories like this one at the Guardian UK not only pass the smell test, but smell very bad indeed.
The TSA’s mission creep is making the US a police state
“John Whitehead Interviews Brandon Raub.” (Raub is nervous and says “very specifically” too often, but it’s worth a listen.)
The voices you hear are not necessarily ones that are emitted from other humans.