He was questioned under oath about his postings to Twitter, according to images of a document said to be from the agency. The document, posted by The Daily Mail and quoted by The Sun, appeared to demonstrate a less-than-full understanding of social media by agents explaining the reason for the questioning:
Mr. Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter Web site account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. Also on his tweeter account Mr. Bryan posted that he was coming to destroy America. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. It was photographed by Small World News Service, an independent British news agency that frequently pays its sources for stories. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Bunting posed together for portraits by the SWNS news agency that appeared in tabloids on Monday, including the Daily Mail and the Sun.
A call to Donald Triner, acting director of the agency office overseeing an initiative on “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness,” was directed to the press office.
It should work like a machine up to a point. At some point you need to include human common sense since you are dealing with written word. They should have been checked if your country is really paranoid, but they should not have been denied entry.
Something tells me that these two weren't automatically banned from entering the U.S., but a decision was made based on the investigation at the airport. Had these two been apologetic and shown remorse for the response their 'innocent' tweets had resulted in, I'm guessing they would have been let in. However, given their stupidity and their comments about the incident, they were probably argumentative the entire time, annoying the agents that the agents were wrong for making this such a big deal. The agents did not have to let them in, but they could have, based on their discretion. More bees with honey than vinegar, I guess.
IMO, the serious investigation was entirely justified. If our country wants security from further terrorist attacks, we can't allow any potential risks, even if that risk is ridiculously trivial in everyone else's point of view. I mean, the couple are entering a country where a serious terrorist-related crime happened just a decade ago..and people are surprised they can't make jokes about bombs/destruction? Is 9/11 really that forgettable? As for the denial of entry after finding out that it wasn't an actual threat..that seems a bit over the top.
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
It is a serious problem, because it's their job to make sure no one ever repeats what happened on 9/11. You think they don't realize they're being a bit paranoid? But what do you think is worse. Sending home a few people who OPENLY stated they were going to 'destroy' regardless of slang, and then nothing catastrophic happens, or b) they say, oh it's just a joke, hahahahaha, and then a bomb blows up an airplane, and the media goes CRAZY about how Homeland security, KNEW of a public announcement on twitter, and they did nothing to stop it.
I'm all for freedom, and i agree, being paranoid sucks, but I can't really fault them for being cautious. 9/11 was a terrible disaster, and there HAS been subsequent attacks that have been stopped due to the added security, you just don't hear about them all the time because it would create mass hysteria.
Basically it's simple, don't go to a sensitive country about terrorism, shouting things that can be misinterpreted publicly, and you'll have no 'travel problems' in the US. No one is allowed to even mutter the word 'bomb' in an airport or airplane because it's such a dangerous possibility, but you don't see a thread 'US citizens removed from plane because he used the word Bomb'.
Why not just check they do not have a bomb or anything of the sorts, use a common sense to determine if they are a threat and just let them in. You can always let CIA or someone follow them.
On February 01 2012 02:34 Zrana wrote: Love how everyone is talking about bombing and terrorists. You've slightly missed the point that they were worried about "digging up Marilyn Monroe". They were searched for shovels. Shovels! (cos it's not like you can buy them in the US)
i just imagined the couple with backpacks on and the handles of two shovels sticking out of each one. I mean seriously, no person in their right mind would pack a shovel with them. Also, why the hell would you want to dig up Marilyn Monroe. I can understand them being questioned about the "destroy america" bit, but national security actually believing that they would go ahead and dig up Monroe.... I mean, even if they dug her up, what would that achieve?
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
On February 01 2012 01:43 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: There is very good reasons why I don't wanna visit the USA. The big problem is that even a airplane stop (even just for refuel!!!) sucks the exact same way as a visit.
I had no problem visiting china and at one point they didnt even take my swiss army knife i forgot in my carry on baggage. china rocks usa sucks.
Lesotho? The third world is allowed to talk shit now? I'll agree, the American airport security protocols are a bit much, but that doesn't mean we suck. That just means some guy from a third world country doesn't get to take out his Swiss army knife and cut the pilot's throat.
Well you could also detain me in Guantanamo indefinitely because of some coincidence in names or whatever. It is better to stay clear of countries where rule of law is so compromised and where government does not respond to international pressure due to "America fuck yeah"-syndrome and paranoia. I feel much safer in China , even in Mexico than in US. Because by being reasonable you can avoid being a victim of criminals, it is hard to avoid being a victim of paranoid state. I am not saying I would actually objectively be safer in Mexico than in US, but I definitely feel safer.
On January 31 2012 19:28 SolHeiM wrote: The only reason this looks ridiculous is because they weren't terrorists, they were just idiots. If they had been terrorists (albeit two very stupid ones, but terrorists) you'd have been praising the U.S. for their excellent counter-terrorism.
This looks stupid because you can antedecently be sure they don't have any malicious intentions. Basically a random person would have a higher chance of being a terrorist than these people if you only knew what the homeland security guys knew. It's not just that the result is they're not terrorists, it's that that's a blindingly obvious result.
This is really laughably bad. Looking for the shovels they're going to use to literally dig up Marilyn Monroe? Come on. This reeks of incompetence. The only point they have is some crap from Twitter? Where's any other research into their backgrounds? Into what the fuck words mean in British English? These agents are as pathetic as the McCarthyists from Indiana Jones, except they happen to be real.
On February 01 2012 03:07 Proof. wrote: IMO, the serious investigation was entirely justified. If our country wants security from further terrorist attacks, we can't allow any potential risks, even if that risk is ridiculously trivial in everyone else's point of view. I mean, the couple are entering a country where a serious terrorist-related crime happened just a decade ago..and people are surprised they can't make jokes about bombs/destruction? Is 9/11 really that forgettable? As for the denial of entry after finding out that it wasn't an actual threat..that seems a bit over the top.
You know that serious terrorist attacks happened in other countries more recently and yet you do not hear them doing such strange stuff.
He was questioned under oath about his postings to Twitter, according to images of a document said to be from the agency. The document, posted by The Daily Mail and quoted by The Sun, appeared to demonstrate a less-than-full understanding of social media by agents explaining the reason for the questioning:
Mr. Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter Web site account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. Also on his tweeter account Mr. Bryan posted that he was coming to destroy America. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. It was photographed by Small World News Service, an independent British news agency that frequently pays its sources for stories. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Bunting posed together for portraits by the SWNS news agency that appeared in tabloids on Monday, including the Daily Mail and the Sun.
A call to Donald Triner, acting director of the agency office overseeing an initiative on “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness,” was directed to the press office.
It should work like a machine up to a point. At some point you need to include human common sense since you are dealing with written word. They should have been checked if your country is really paranoid, but they should not have been denied entry.
Human error, that's why.
Out of 100 million people transiting, let's say 1000 deliver jokes similar to this one through any kind of medium. A reasonable officer filters each one reaching the conclusion each joke was harmless, not intended and so on lets them pass. 999 out of 10 million people (0.000001% of total) get to enjoy a nice vacation in the US. 1 out of 10 million kills people with a bomb. How many? You can't tell. Maybe none but some get mutilated, maybe one, maybe be 10 or 50
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
No it's not. He's talking about threats from within the country while the topic is about threats from the outside.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Homeland security assumed a foreign threat targetting american soil based on a twitter message. ... And, therefore the original argument is still valid: No real terrorist who wants to actually accomplish spreading terror would announce his plans ahead of time.
None of the cases mentioned above has got anything to do with foreign terrorists posting announcements about their planned deed on twitter.
How the fuck can you even compare a video of a couple ANNOUNCING NAMES and DESCRIBING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO to someone posting what the british couple did?
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
On January 31 2012 19:23 Paulio wrote: I'm wondering who made the decision to deny them entry. I'm pretty sure a simple aiport security guy isn't checking twitter for such posts. This means the order had to come up from someone higher in the chain of command. This brings me to the real question: who surveys twitter for such posts, and maybe more importantly, how high on the chain of command is the dumbf*ck that makes these decisions...
No one is checking twitter for posts. They have a computer algorithm (or something like that anyway) that searches and flags certain tweets. There is no one who is getting paid to search on twitter for "terrorist activity."
The only reason this looks ridiculous is because they weren't terrorists, they were just idiots. If they had been terrorists (albeit two very stupid ones, but terrorists) you'd have been praising the U.S. for their excellent counter-terrorism.
On January 31 2012 19:27 Capped wrote: Lol Solhelm haha :D you make me laugh man.
Terrorist organisation with moles, links, firepower all the rest and ways into the US.
British tourists.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but theres a SLIGHT difference in what they could accomplish and a SLIGHT difference in the way they "declare" their terrorism? -_-
Only a retarded terrorist would fuckin' post on twitter he's off to do his terrorist work in america, then use the same name on the passport, are you serious?
BTW, retards dont have the mental capacity to be a terrorist, only to play video games on the internetz (apparently )
Do you seriously think that you can tell the difference between a terrorist and any average human being? Most terrorists aren't a bearded Muslim in a dynamite vest.
And did you just call me a retard?
*Sigh* There's always one idiot like you in every single thread. How exactly were they 'just idiots', for posting on twitter using a slang word which is apparently offensive. 'Destroy' - Holy shit.
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Top notch profiling right there.
He's got all 6 seasons of Criminal Minds on DVD, which makes him an expert in the field of profiling terrorists and criminals.
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
No it's not. He's talking about threats from within the country while the topic is about threats from the outside.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Homeland security assumed a foreign threat targetting american soil based on a twitter message. ... And, therefore the original argument is still valid: No real terrorist who wants to actually accomplish spreading terror would announce his plans ahead of time.
None of the cases mentioned above has got anything to do with foreign terrorists posting announcements about their planned deed on twitter.
How the fuck can you even compare a video of a couple ANNOUNCING NAMES and DESCRIBING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO to someone posting what the british couple did?
I think you need to calm down sir. A few deep breaths, you weren't harmed in any way by what happened to these two tourists...
I don't think you read about the Oklahoma City Bombings. In that case, the guy who killed (hundreds of) people did so as a way to get revenge for how the government handled a group of cultists. He was as sane as anyone who can in cold blood kill hundreds of people to show up a nameless entity. Which is exactly what most assumed foreign terrorists would be aiming to do. Unless they hate America for no reason, and then they fall into the insane example of the Arizona Couple and Jared Laughner.
On January 31 2012 19:23 Paulio wrote: I'm wondering who made the decision to deny them entry. I'm pretty sure a simple aiport security guy isn't checking twitter for such posts. This means the order had to come up from someone higher in the chain of command. This brings me to the real question: who surveys twitter for such posts, and maybe more importantly, how high on the chain of command is the dumbf*ck that makes these decisions...
No one is checking twitter for posts. They have a computer algorithm (or something like that anyway) that searches and flags certain tweets. There is no one who is getting paid to search on twitter for "terrorist activity."
The only reason this looks ridiculous is because they weren't terrorists, they were just idiots. If they had been terrorists (albeit two very stupid ones, but terrorists) you'd have been praising the U.S. for their excellent counter-terrorism.
On January 31 2012 19:27 Capped wrote: Lol Solhelm haha :D you make me laugh man.
Terrorist organisation with moles, links, firepower all the rest and ways into the US.
British tourists.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but theres a SLIGHT difference in what they could accomplish and a SLIGHT difference in the way they "declare" their terrorism? -_-
Only a retarded terrorist would fuckin' post on twitter he's off to do his terrorist work in america, then use the same name on the passport, are you serious?
BTW, retards dont have the mental capacity to be a terrorist, only to play video games on the internetz (apparently )
Do you seriously think that you can tell the difference between a terrorist and any average human being? Most terrorists aren't a bearded Muslim in a dynamite vest.
And did you just call me a retard?
*Sigh* There's always one idiot like you in every single thread. How exactly were they 'just idiots', for posting on twitter using a slang word which is apparently offensive. 'Destroy' - Holy shit.
They were idiots because they did not follow this simple algorithm:
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Top notch profiling right there.
He's got all 6 seasons of Criminal Minds on DVD, which makes him an expert in the field of profiling terrorists and criminals.
Actually I used my brain and the power of statistics. Please use google the next time before you try to denounce someone who worked with psychologists who deal with this type of stuff on a daily basis the next time. Thank you very much.
EPT
)
