Malarkey in the US

[Aimless]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1242073.html

Two 20-somethings arriving from the U.K. learned a harsh lesson about the American government's sense of humor on Monday, Jan. 23, when they were detained and then forced to return home due to comments they made on Twitter.

According to the Daily Mail, Leigh Van Bryan, 26, and Emily Bunting, 24, were going through Customs when they were detained.

The two spent the next 12 hours locked up in a cell, being grilled by Homeland Security officials. Bryan was charged with intending to come to the U.S. to commit crimes, while Bunting was charged for traveling with him.

Paperwork for the incident indicates that Bryan's name was on a "One Day Lookout" list maintained by Homeland Security.

According to the New York Post and World News Daily, this refers to an auto-generated temporary list of inbound travelers that are already in the official terror watch list database.

...

During secondary examination, Mr. Bryan was placed under oath and his sworn statement was taken by CBP Officer Wahmann, Mr. Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter [sic] website account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. Also the tweeter account of Mr. Bryan posted that he was coming to destroy America.

...

The tweets had been sent a week before their trip, indicating the U.S. government had flagged the pair well before their arrival.

Both claimed the messages were lost in translation.

"They asked why we wanted to destroy America and we tried to explain ['destroy'] meant to get trashed and party," Bunting told the Daily Mail.

Bryan also said he was asked about a tweet that he says is a quote from the television show 'Family Guy' that read, "3 weeks today, we're totally in LA p***** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin' Marilyn Monroe up!"

"I almost burst out laughing when they asked me if I was going to be Leigh's lookout while he dug up Marilyn Monroe," Bunting told the Daily Mail. "It got even more ridiculous because the officials searched our suitcases and said they were looking for spades and shovels."

But things quickly became less humorous to Bryan and Bunting.

[wiggin]

To be honest, I don't see what the issue is. The two travelers were being idiotic - you don't tweet about going to destroy America a week before you fly there. The US actually checks this kind of thing.

Irrespective of whether they meant it or not (I'm sure they didn't), the US had every right to refuse them entry, and they did nothing more than ask them some questions and deport them. Fair enough.

I do find it amusing that the official report calls it a 'tweeter' account.

[Aimless]

I found the obsession with shovels and Marilyn Monroe even more amusing, esp. because that seems to be the basis of their conspiracy-to-commit-crime charge

[wiggin]

The Monroe thing seems a bit odd, but in the absence of context about the quote, it's a reasonable concern. Most people who claim to want to 'destroy' America aren't exactly well-balanced; it's not unreasonable to take their comment at face value.


I really find this to be a non-story. Tourist says stupid thing, gets deported. Whoop-de-doo. It's like being surprised you're deported if you include on your customs form that you're bringing explosive into the country 'as a joke'. The Customs and Immigrations people take their jobs seriously and don't have a sense of humor. This is not news.

[Ominous Gamer]

but in the absence of context about the quote, it's a reasonable concern. Most people who claim to want to 'destroy' America aren't exactly well-balanced; it's not unreasonable to take their comment at face value.

You've never heard destroyed used as slang?

[wiggin]

Not in this context, no. I've heard, "I'm going to get so destroyed", but not "free this week for a quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?" (which is the exact tweet mentioned)

Regardless, I can see that it probably wasn't intended in the literal sense. But I'm not responsible for determining intent, nor are the border control guys. They are given a name that was flagged for some comments that were seen as a potential threat on face value, they ask the individuals if they said it, and when it's confirmed they deport them. I get the logic - it's far safer to deport someone than be the idiot who let a terrorist into the country because they thought they were joking. Far better to have zero sense of humor IMO.

Was it overreacting? Maybe. Was it stupid on the part of the tourists? Absolutely. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Ominous Gamer]

Not in this context, no. I've heard, "I'm going to get so destroyed", but not "free this week for a quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?" (which is the exact tweet mentioned)

So you've never heard an excited/nervous student claim they were going to destroy a test? Cause thats the vibe I'm getting from here.

Regardless, I can see that it probably wasn't intended in the literal sense. But I'm not responsible for determining intent, nor are the border control guys. They are given a name that was flagged for some comments that were seen as a potential threat on face value, they ask the individuals if they said it, and when it's confirmed they deport them. I get the logic - it's far safer to deport someone than be the idiot who let a terrorist into the country because they thought they were joking. Far better to have zero sense of humor IMO.

Was it overreacting? Maybe. Was it stupid on the part of the tourists? Absolutely. Nothing to see here, move along.

Your justification is what I see wrong with how the US operates. Complete lack of understanding of outsiders.

[wiggin]

So you've never heard an excited/nervous student claim they were going to destroy a test? Cause thats the vibe I'm getting from here.

Destroying a test implies beating it; that wasn't the context here. I've heard people talk about getting drunk in that context, but it doesn't work here either.

Your justification is what I see wrong with how the US operates. Complete lack of understanding of outsiders.

Oh, please, it's hardly just the US. The UK arrested a guy over a tweet with similar overtones, with far more serious consequences for him: http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/20...trial-protest/

[Ominous Gamer]

Destroying a test implies beating it; that wasn't the context here. I've heard people talk about getting drunk in that context, but it doesn't work here either.

you said said to take it without context

and "beating it" seems like a pretty good interpretation. Its a common claim to have survived a vacation to unknown, possibly hostile locations (famous top gear episode).

Oh, please, it's hardly just the US. The UK arrested a guy over a tweet with similar overtones: http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/20...trial-protest/

and that makes it ok for us? not that i think screaming fire in a crowded movie theater is the same as saying you're going to destroy a country.

[wiggin]

you said said to take it without context

and "beating it" seems like a pretty good interpretation. Its a common claim to have survived a vacation to unknown, possibly hostile locations (famous top gear episode).

There's two forms of context - one is an assumption about the intent of the individual or a knowledge of Family Guy, the second is within the Tweet itself. "... before I go and destroy America" doesn't make sense in terms of beating a test IMO; even the individuals themselves claimed it had to do with getting drunk. I've heard the getting drunk thing before, but it doesn't really fit with the tweet either. Regardless, I think we all can agree it was a very poor choice of words. I personally don't think it's the responsibility of CBP to determine whether such a phrase is intentional or not - they take people at what they say, not what they may or may not mean.

and that makes it ok for us? not that i think screaming fire in a crowded movie theater is the same as saying you're going to destroy a country.

I'm not making a claim of okay or not okay, I was just explaining that your critique of the US in particular is patently wrong. (BTW, they only arrested the UK airport guy a week after his tweet - it didn't cause any panic at the time.) On the other hand, I do actually have no problem with how the CBP handled this. And I consider it a fit punishment for the absolute idiocy of posting that to a public account right before you enter one of the most security-conscious countries in the world.

(BTW, they only took them aside for questioning after they got a call to their tipline about suspicious activity on the part of the two tourists... so they already had prior cause to be a bit more suspicious.)

edit: Now, see, THIS would be overkill.

[Hazir]

I think it was utter overkill, but it's the sort of nonsense you expect from the braindead deskmonkeys the US government is so fond of employing, so in a way Wiggin is right and people should really stop making funny remarks when dealing with these idiots because they either deport you or taze you for little other reason than that they've got a fuse shorter than that of a muslim fanatic.

[Lewkowski]

Kinda overkill but honestly I'd rather we be safe than sorry. Terrorists have used social media before.

[Aimless]

Kinda overkill but honestly I'd rather we be safe than sorry. Terrorists have used social media before.

Jesus christ what does this even mean?

*headdesk*

[Khendraja'aro]

Context IS important, guys. That's why you need guys versed in the specific culture when dealing with texts from a different culture. Or do you honestly think that agencies like the NSA or CIA simply run their intercepted infos through Google Translate, or what?

Another real example - British guy after a long flight. Upon arrival in the US he turns to his neighbour and utters: "I really could murder a fag right now."

Not to mention that the case here is utterly ridiculous: You have people you label as "potential terrorists" - and you have nothing better to do than to place those same people in an airplane? Honestly?

[wiggin]

Context IS important, guys. That's why you need guys versed in the specific culture when dealing with texts from a different culture. Or do you honestly think that agencies like the NSA or CIA simply run their intercepted infos through Google Translate, or what?

Do you honestly think that this particular case ever made it to a cultural expert at the NSA or CIA? Really?! I'm sure that the CBP officers thought there was a 99% chance that the tourists were completely innocent, and that's without fancy training. But that 1% made them deport them. What's the harm? Hell, at the very least it's valid punishment for quoting Family Guy.

Another real example - British guy after a long flight. Upon arrival in the US he turns to his neighbour and utters: "I really could murder a fag right now."

Two points. First, it's not really analogous - 'fag' in the US to describe an individual is a fairly new bit of slang, not an accepted part of the English language (like the fairly straightforward phrase "destroy America"). Second, I think a Brit who said that should receive some nasty looks from people. I think it's the height of ridiculousness to expect a host country to know everything about the slang and culture of visitors, and they should take statements at face value. To a large extent, it's the responsibility of the visitor to respect local cultural norms, not the other way around.

My wife works at a British firm with a small office in the US. She's had to coach her British coworkers not to say things like 'I have to smoke a fag' or the like because it's frankly unprofessional and very off-putting to clients. I don't think it's unreasonable for that to be the expected norm. I'm told that the common American term 'pants' to describe trousers actually denotes underwear in the UK. So if I were visiting the UK and told someone 'nice pants', they'd be perfectly in their rights to be weirded out, though that would hardly get a second glance in the US (in fact, that phrase was the title of a successful ad campaign by Dockers some years back).

Not to mention that the case here is utterly ridiculous: You have people you label as "potential terrorists" - and you have nothing better to do than to place those same people in an airplane? Honestly?

If CBP thought they were terrorists, they wouldn't have sent them off - that's what we have prisons for. They just thought they were an unacceptable risk.

[Khendraja'aro]

Jesus. "What's the harm"?

Honestly, I have a lot of respect for you, but that part is a massive brain fart on your side. Seriously.

And here I thought that the USA were supposed to be the "Land of the Free", what with all this defending the freedom of speech and such. Must've been an error on my part - must've mistaken it for China or North Korea. Because it's not a good sign if a country is able to and actually does collect any and all public information about individuals inside and entering the country - and yet is not able to discriminate between actual threats and absolutely harmless postings at the same time.
Really does not bode well for your freedom. Ever thought about that? I mean, what does it look like if you try to enter a country and some minor, underpaid und sub-intelligence functionary pulls up a sheet and tells you: "Well, would you mind explaining this forum posting half a year ago?"
We got rid of such an agency some years ago. Was called the STASI.

[Ominous Gamer]

What's the harm?

How much of their plane tickets, reservations and other travel expenses were refunded because of this "better safe than sorry" mindset?

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, Ominous, this is the same country which asked in a form upon entering the country: "Are you member of a terroristic organization?"

This form put a travel group including some friends of mine in a precarious situation - because one of the questions was:

"Do you suffer from an infectious disease or are you mentally handicapped?"

Problem was: Their group had indeed one mentally handicapped member...

[Aimless]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with professionalism or rudeness. This was not a professional situation for the two tourists, and rudeness is generally not a crime. Re. where's the harm, see OG's objection. This is incredible, but I suppose it will be easier for ordinary people to follow the "anti family guy" law now that they know the US government is auto-spying on them using twitter-crawlers.

Re. the risk of terrorism, why indeed were they sent back in a plane and with no "enhanced" interrogation? Re. other shenanigans, did they find any shovels?


But you're right, in many ways this isn't news. It's def. not news that the US has some strange approaches to airport "security".

[Hazir]

Well Aimless, this is what you get if you put people from the lower rungs of the educational system in a situation where they can wield power over people who can do what they can't afford to do (going on a vacation abroad). You would not believe how polite I am at airports.

[wiggin]

Jesus. "What's the harm"?

Honestly, I have a lot of respect for you, but that part is a massive brain fart on your side. Seriously.

And here I thought that the USA were supposed to be the "Land of the Free", what with all this defending the freedom of speech and such. Must've been an error on my part - must've mistaken it for China or North Korea. Because it's not a good sign if a country is able to and actually does collect any and all public information about individuals inside and entering the country - and yet is not able to discriminate between actual threats and absolutely harmless postings at the same time.
Really does not bode well for your freedom. Ever thought about that? I mean, what does it look like if you try to enter a country and some minor, underpaid und sub-intelligence functionary pulls up a sheet and tells you: "Well, would you mind explaining this forum posting half a year ago?"
We got rid of such an agency some years ago. Was called the STASI.

Er... non-citizens trying to enter the country don't have some right to free speech. And they weren't infringing their right to say what they wanted, they just wanted to be able to screen who entered the country on the basis of what they said. That is NOT an infringement of free speech even if the 1st amendment applied to foreigners. This is not an issue of 'thoughtcrime', just border control.

How much of their plane tickets, reservations and other travel expenses were refunded because of this "better safe than sorry" mindset?

Entering the US is a privilege, not a right, and US law clearly allows for refusing entry to someone who has expressed an intention to commit crimes. The action was perfectly legal. As to meta-legal considerations, I personally find the cost in lost travel funds and the like to be a reasonable punishment for idiocy, but that's just me.

Re. the risk of terrorism, why indeed were they sent back in a plane and with no "enhanced" interrogation?

Believe it or not, the US has a much higher bar for enhanced interrogation of a terror suspect than some twitter messages. They have a carefully nuanced legal structure to deal with such things; disagree with the fundamental principles if you will, but they don't apply it willy-nilly. Deportation was a reasonable way to minimize risk without undue punishment for likely innocent individuals.

[Aimless]

As am I although I permit myself the occasional chuckle when the random metal-detector bleeps accurately target dark bearded men The only places I've encountered airport jerks are Paris... and Toronto of all places.

[Hazir]

As am I although I permit myself the occasional chuckle when the random metal-detector bleeps accurately target dark bearded men The only places I've encountered airport jerks are Paris... and Toronto of all places.

I assume you never flew to JFK then ?

[wiggin]

Airport jerks are the same the world over, Hazir (the US is no exception, but neither is it exceptional in my experience). It needn't be a function of paranoia - my best airport security experiences have been in Israel, which is thorough but polite and effective (and rather speedy)... and they're far more paranoid than even the TSA.

[Loki]

This form put a travel group including some friends of mine in a precarious situation - because one of the questions was:

"Do you suffer from an infectious disease or are you mentally handicapped?"

Problem was: Their group had indeed one mentally handicapped member...

Nice try. The actual question is: "Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance or a dangerous physical or mental disorder, or ever been a drug abuser or addict?"

https://evisaforms.state.gov/ds156.asp

[LittleFuzzy]

the US government is auto-spying on them using twitter-crawlers.

Ok, you all find this situation ridiculous, actions taken make no sense, so on and so forth. But I think what you just said, Minx, applying the term "spying" to any use of material published on the Twitter service, is more ridiculous and nonsensical than any of these events. Twitter is designed to be THE MOST PUBLIC AND ACCESSIBLE way to communicate something to the rest of the world that is available to the common man. It so happened that people affiliated with airport security happened to be among the people who noticed their global broadcast.

[Hazir]

Ok, you all find this situation ridiculous, actions taken make no sense, so on and so forth. But I think what you just said, Minx, applying the term "spying" to any use of material published on the Twitter service, is more ridiculous and nonsensical than any of these events. Twitter is designed to be THE MOST PUBLIC AND ACCESSIBLE way to communicate something to the rest of the world that is available to the common man. It so happened that people affiliated with airport security happened to be among the people who noticed their global broadcast.

And then turned around to make something silly into something absurd. Twitter is full to the point of overflowing with tweets that are best not taken too literal. As is true for a lot of things people utter. People gain status by being percieved as funny or witty by their friends.

Let's say I heard 'And then he turned me over and fucked me hard up the ass, but the worst part was that he wanted me to pretend I liked it' from a collegue at work. Who is to blame if I take that as a litteral description of what happened during a business meeting with other people present?

The main problem with these people was probably that they didn't realise with what braindead monkeys they were dealing fast enough so they were too deep into trouble before they shaped up. It is more likely they were put back on a plane to the UK because the interrogators would have looked sillier if they would have let them in after 12 hours of grilling. Now they could latch on to the 1% doubt (yeah rite) Wiggin talks about and not look like the jackasses they really are.

Travelling by air has become risky business for those who don't do it on a regular basis; those of us who fly often enough know that you don't anger the gorilla's, EVER.

[Aimless]

I assume you never flew to JFK then ?

I don't dare

Airport jerks are the same the world over, Hazir (the US is no exception, but neither is it exceptional in my experience). It needn't be a function of paranoia - my best airport security experiences have been in Israel, which is thorough but polite and effective (and rather speedy)... and they're far more paranoid than even the TSA.

They're better trained, have better routines, and are more confident. I have to wonder whether or not our experiences would differ, considering my very Muslim name and dangerous appearance

Ok, you all find this situation ridiculous, actions taken make no sense, so on and so forth. But I think what you just said, Minx, applying the term "spying" to any use of material published on the Twitter service, is more ridiculous and nonsensical than any of these events. Twitter is designed to be THE MOST PUBLIC AND ACCESSIBLE way to communicate something to the rest of the world that is available to the common man. It so happened that people affiliated with airport security happened to be among the people who noticed their global broadcast.

"Just so happened"? Okay, I interpreted it as the DHS generating automated lookout lists based on info gleaned from twitter-crawling via fake accounts for "dangerous" keywords.

[wiggin]

Ok, you all find this situation ridiculous, actions taken make no sense, so on and so forth. But I think what you just said, Minx, applying the term "spying" to any use of material published on the Twitter service, is more ridiculous and nonsensical than any of these events. Twitter is designed to be THE MOST PUBLIC AND ACCESSIBLE way to communicate something to the rest of the world that is available to the common man. It so happened that people affiliated with airport security happened to be among the people who noticed their global broadcast.

I actually think that it's a good thing the US is getting with the program wrt social media (DHS and the Pentagon in particular). They identified an important trend in how people interact and are trying to harness it - both for open source intelligence gathering and for information operations and the like. I personally think it shows foresight and adaptability.

The main problem with these people was probably that they didn't realise with what braindead monkeys they were dealing fast enough so they were too deep into trouble before they shaped up. It is more likely they were put back on a plane to the UK because the interrogators would have looked sillier if they would have let them in after 12 hours of grilling. Now they could latch on to the 1% doubt (yeah rite) Wiggin talks about and not look like the jackasses they really are.

I don't understand this - you think they deported two people to save face? Doesn't seem any better than letting them into the country - in the latter case, at least the disgruntled tourists would have said, "well, they took us aside for questioning because we did something stupid, but they realized we weren't a risk and let us go." Seems like that would sit better with most people reading the story.

Travelling by air has become risky business for those who don't do it on a regular basis; those of us who fly often enough know that you don't anger the gorilla's, EVER.

Airport security and border patrol guys are notorious for lacking senses of humor. Why do you need to be a seasoned traveler to know this?

They're better trained, have better routines, and are more confident. I have to wonder whether or not our experiences would differ, considering my very Muslim name and dangerous appearance

I didn't say Israeli security doesn't practice profiling - actually, they're one of the few airports that practices it openly. But they have far more sophisticated profiles than just ethnicity or religion; in fact, most of their screening is behavioral in nature, backed up by sophisticated intelligence. I was referring to the 'airport jerks' you were discussing - Israeli security may give certain individuals a tougher time, but they have a fairly streamlined process for moving people through the system, even if they're selected for additional screening (e.g. bag searches, etc.). I'll admit that I'm often even luckier - since I know Hebrew and travel with my Israeli wife, we sometimes don't even have our bags sent through the initial X-ray screening that most people get and get put into a 'low risk' category and sent straight to check-in. But I've been through the other parts of the process as well when I raised some more red flags, and it was efficient and polite, though thorough.

I have no issue whatsoever with border patrol or airport security types being thorough and flagging potential risks on the basis of open source intelligence about them or their behavior. I do have an issue with them being inefficient or unprofessional about it, and I'll admit that CBP and the TSA often fail these rubrics, though not in a particularly unique fashion.

[Hazir]

Yes, I think they deported them to save face. The alternative would have been 'innocent tourists kept for 12 hours for a silly twitter message'. Now they can parade around and convince people (like you) that it's better to be safe than to be sorry. Because, well, you never know with people who say they're going to destroy the US. After all Osama also said he was going to destroy the US.

As for the lack of humour and/or common sense of security staff at airports; not everybody is used to deal with grown ups who behave like petulant teenagers, who have power over whether or not you get on that plane. People who have travelled a bit more know what they're dealing with.