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.

[Steely Glint]

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.

And has this practice prevented a single terrorist incident or saved a single life? Are their any recorded instances of a terrorist clearly stating their aim at border control or in public before traveling? Can you construct any plausible scenario where "I will destroy America" posted on twitter might actually have been meant literally? Is investigating an obvious joke on the minute chance it mighty be true an effective use of the border agents time? If you were a terrorist, might you consider having an accomplice on your flight into the US tweet something like "brb, gonna assassinate the prez" so the security apparatus can focus on him instead of you? Is this policy not, in fact, pants on head retarded?

[Ominous Gamer]

And has this practice prevented a single terrorist incident or saved a single life? Are their any recorded instances of a terrorist clearly stating their aim at border control or in public before traveling? Can you construct any plausible scenario where "I will destroy America" posted on twitter might actually have been meant literally? Is investigating an obvious joke on the minute chance it mighty be true an effective use of the border agents time? If you were a terrorist, might you consider having an accomplice on your flight into the US tweet something like "brb, gonna assassinate the prez" so the security apparatus can focus on him instead of you? Is this policy not, in fact, pants on head retarded?

a simple question arising from this.

These people who were held, and finally sent back home. Who thinks their opinion and stance towards the US has improved?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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

[Khendraja'aro]

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

They revised it somewhat. However, you'll note that they still list the question: "Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State?"

Which terrorists do they hope to catch with this? The really, really dumb ones which wouldn't have a snow flake's chance in hell anyway?

More importantly: What the hell is a "dangerous physical disorder"?

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?

The new thing is that now you have to watch your every post if you ever want to go somewhere. "Hey, that disgrunteled post you wrote two years ago where you said that the US really needs a new form of government, that just doesn't fly with us, y'know?"

[Veldan Rath]

The new thing is that now you have to watch your every post if you ever want to go somewhere. "Hey, that disgrunteled post you wrote two years ago where you said that the US really needs a new form of government, that just doesn't fly with us, y'know?"

This.

Wigs this is where this can get silly.

Being a Twit on Twitter should not net you a fine of a couple grand (wasted tickets, reservations, and other misc) from DHS. It's Security Theater.

[Aimless]

And, of course, re. employers being keen on knowing about facebook shenanigans, do you think they always get away with eg. firing employees over facebook comments?

[wiggin]

Tbh I do think it makes a difference what methods governments use for their interventions, esp. when their preferred methods--in this case a ridiculously broad and obviously useless automatic "screening" system coupled with complete and utter idiocy (on the part of the officials rather than the tourists)--make it increasingly difficult for ordinary people to lead ordinary law-abiding lives without being hassled.

My remark was not in objection to your appropriate dismissal of the "spying" accusation; it was a comment on what, to me, looked like a dismissal of this incident as happenstance. As if someone from DHS accidentally came across these tweets and then started profiling them, pfft. But okay, you don't like twitter and chavvy Brits, who does

DHS didn't run across the tweets by happenstance, but they had a second trigger to cause them to focus on these travelers - at least according to CBP, they received a call to their tipline at LAX about them. It might have been a prank or them lying about it, but it does warrant a greater level of vigilance.

They revised it somewhat. However, you'll note that they still list the question: "Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State?"

Which terrorists do they hope to catch with this? The really, really dumb ones which wouldn't have a snow flakes chance in hell anyway?

As Nessie said, it's a good way to deport/arrest people who entered the country under less-than-honest circumstances. If they can catch them for immigration fraud (i.e. lying on their entry form on that question), it's grounds for all sorts of legal proceedings. It's often easier to prove membership in a terrorist organization than other more dangerous behavior, and this is a convenient legal way to deal with it.

The new thing is that now you have to watch your every post if you ever want to go somewhere. "Hey, that disgrunteled post you wrote two years ago where you said that the US really needs a new form of government, that just doesn't fly with us, y'know?"

Most people don't post publicly that they want to destroy America. There's a distinction here: CBP would never stop someone if they posted a heated diatribe against the Obama administration. But they would stop them if someone posted that they wanted Obama to die. That's the important distinction here. A critique of, say, the way Congress works is rather different from calling for a revolution.

I personally don't have problems refusing entry to people who meet this criterion; the vast majority of people don't, and entering the US is a privilege, not a right. Plenty of other countries refuse entry to people (including Americans) on the basis of things they've said or written - in fact, some of them are permanently blacklisted IIRC. I don't have a problem with that, either.

To be fair, entering the US is a privilege not a right. And I assume they'd apply different standards to their own citizens. Right? Right?

Subject to the restrictions legally allowed on the 1st amendment, citizens in this country can say whatever they want, and they receive entry into the country without having to deal with these issues. Obviously if their speech drifts into any number of prohibited forms of speech (e.g. hate speech), they can have other legal issues, but to my knowledge they wouldn't be denied entry into the country.

[Loki]

Subject to the restrictions legally allowed on the 1st amendment, citizens in this country can say whatever they want, and they receive entry into the country without having to deal with these issues. Obviously if their speech drifts into any number of prohibited forms of speech (e.g. hate speech), they can have other legal issues, but to my knowledge they wouldn't be denied entry into the country.

Actually, the US can't block a citizen from entering the US even if they committed crimes. That would make them a stateless person, which is against international law. That obviously wouldn't prevent the US from arresting the person as soon as they set foot in the country.

[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".

[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.