One said he’d ‘destroy’ America. That appears to be a threat. End of story.
John Mace - it seems you may have missed your true vocation.
So I take it you think John Mace really wants to have sex with the Tweeting Tourist Two?
Please do not try to claim that the role of border control covering more than just terrorism is some sort of arcane knowledge only you have considered. The reason terrorism has been mentioned here is because that seems to be the issue TSA/DHS have latched onto by focussing on the “destroy America” issue. Alternatively, which category of your list do you think the couple on question fell into, that they should be stopped and refused entry by the TSA
Also, congratulations for pointing out the DHS budget is $43 billion. Unfortunately, you’re wrong (“The FY 2012 budget request for DHS is $57.0 billion in total funding” - http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget-bib-fy2012-overview.pdf) There’s also the rather obvious problem that the DHS is supported by the NSA (who operate Echelon, budget classified, last known was 1998 27 billion, estimates now range from 50 - 80 billion) and the TSA (budget $8 billion). So, a security system that costs $100 billion+, but generates a false positive because of an inane tweet. Serious value for money there, guys.
My favourite comment of yours was this:
“Now I’m just guessing here, but I betcha the information they uncovered was that the pair were likely to overstay.”
Well, at least you acknowledge it’s a guess. Just how did you decide that was the likely scenario then? Seriously, between your “I’m guessing but I betcha” and John’s “we do not know all the facts therefore no criticism can be made”, this is becoming a pretty farcical thread.
So why in the interview/interrogation with the DHS (or whoever it was) could they not work out that they didn’t actually want to destroy anything?
Personally I think it is one of three possibilities:
- Something we do not have the facts for and thus can’t really claim.
- It all kicked off in the interrogation and they got refused entry for being dicks.
- DHS people were dicks and then refused to back down so as to save face.
Personally I think 2 or 3 are the most likely scenarios. My personal theory is 3 but that is, with the available evidence, just a theory.
I note that in this post you said:
Why are you inciting violence?
No, it doesn’t appear to be a threat.
If it did, he’d be in Guantanimo Bay or somewhere similar.
“Have a blast” is presumably a Conspiracy offence.
There are less than 200 people in Guantanamo. Are you saying there are only 200 people in the world who appear to be a threat to the US right now? Exactly how many people have the Obama administration sent to Guantanamo?
I’m sure there are one or two others. But why don’t you leave these sorts of things to the professionals, eh?
You’re right, flying through Canada isn’t suspicious. But in the story presented, the Brits were driving across the border after vacationing in Canada. They weren’t on a layover. You’re aware that we’re talking about elbow’s story of a Niagra Falls trip in the 90s, right?
Secondly, people overstay for all kinds of reasons. There are about 300,000 cases per year. They can’t all be Mexicans.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. First, saying stupid shit like “that seems to be the issue TSA/DHS have latched onto”, “refused entry by the TSA”, and “DHS is supported by NSA and TSA” and then adding their budgets together marks you as so ignorant of the US government, its laws, and its procedures, that you really should go sit at the kiddie table and let the adults talk.
Second, it was $200 billion in your first post, and now it’s not even $150 billion. Yet you presume to correct my math?
Third, I can’t even point out how dumb it is to imply that that $100 billion all went toward stopping this one Brit and his girlfriend, and then claim we’re not getting our money’s worth. It’s as stupid as saying “A $100 billion budget, and these guys have to get coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts.” And this is in the same post that started off with how you realize that the $100 billion goes toward more than just terrorism border security.
Christ, how do you debate somebody who thinks the TSA does border security? That adds TSA’s budget to DHS’s budget, which is stupid by itself, but fails to realize that they don’t even feature in the story? That thinks the NSA is subordinate to DHS, or thinks that the NSA’s sole budget goes toward scanning Twitter?
Your post reads as the equivalent of “If Elvis was really assassinated, how come the moon is full every night? Good job, NASA.”
Again, you just made that up.
No, I didn’t realise that. Looking again, I should have - my bad.
But I doubt overstaying was considered a risk for the Tweeting Two. (Can’t be arsed to write both of their names every time).
The only thing more ludicrous than the original decision is that there are people in this thread rabidly defending it.
If I say that England is “the bomb” should I be arrested? What about if I tweet that “I am totally going to wreck this dude I just met”? I mean, that’s clearly a threat of violence, right? Then if he also tweets, “I just met this girl and I am totally going to hit that,” he should be deported too, yes?
As I said before, this is ludicrous. We supposedly employ actual human beings with actual brains in our security institutions, and one of the things that a human with a brain can do is to look at something that is clearly and obviously just a slang term being used by a kid about to go on a trip, and say, “You know, even though this contains the word ‘destroy’, it is clearly and obviously just a slang term being used by a kid about to go on a trip, and it would be completely ludicrous to spend time, energy, and resources on taking any sort of action about this whatsoever.”
If we’re going to start banning people from the country for using slang expressions containing the words “destroy”, “bomb”, “blast”, etc., we might as well just turn the whole thing over to the computers and admit that security in this country is based on flowcharts and algorithms instead of rational thought.
Like the DHS?
Chessic Sense, please dial it back a bit. We’re not in the Pit here.
No one was arrested or deported in this case.
Oh, burn. You just destroyed my entire argument with your display of blazing logic.
Feel free to replace every instance of “arrested” or “deported” with “banned from entering the country,” Lieutenant Nitpick.
But they weren’t ‘banned from entering the country’, which implies they can never return.
They were refused entry. One time only. At least get that straight.
- The DHS, TSA and NSA are the relevant government agencies for this affair. International monitoring of web traffic is done by the NSA, who then coordinate with the DHS flagging what they see as potential threats in incoming visitors to the DHS, who in turn advise/instruct the TSA on flagged cases.
- The total budgets for these agencies is unknown. While the DHS publishes main figures, a number of items of expenditure are withheld as being confidential. The NSA’s budget has been classified for a decade. That means that the margin for guesstimates for the total ranges from 100 Billion up to whatever figure you care to think.
- Considering that level of expenditure, plus the very free rein they are given in terms of civil liberties, you would hope they were a bit less farcical than this episode suggests.
Is that clear enough for you?
Again I ask: Why not? If they truly were a danger to our country, if they truly planned to destroy our country, why the hell were they not arrested?
Try again.