PDA

View Full Version : British pair arrested in U.S. on terror charges over Twitter jokes




Tyler_Durden
01-30-2012, 07:45 PM
Welcome to the Police State:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/British-tourists-arrested-America-terror-charges-Twitter-jokes.html

sailingaway
01-30-2012, 07:45 PM
Hey, at least they didn't just disappear....

unknown
01-30-2012, 07:49 PM
The government isnt watching everything you do, everything you say. Thats conspiracy theory nonsense.

giovannile07
01-30-2012, 08:08 PM
Wow sheesh, the government is just nuts now, Big Brother is watching us.

coffeewithchess
01-30-2012, 08:11 PM
How did they even know what they had typed, and how did they know it was the people that were flying? That's what I would like to know, not that it's impossible...but the fact they connected the dots from a Twitter message, to British citizens, to add them to a "do not enter" list so quickly, I think shows the system is pretty advanced now.

giovannile07
01-30-2012, 08:13 PM
How did they even know what they had typed, and how did they know it was the people that were flying? That's what I would like to know, not that it's impossible...but the fact they connected the dots from a Twitter message, to British citizens, to add them to a "do not enter" list so quickly, I think shows the system is pretty advanced now.
It says on one of the bars that the government has made fake Twitter accounts to scan for words that might be dangerous or something on Twitter...

everlasticity
01-30-2012, 08:15 PM
Is it just me? Because I think it is just incredibly stupid to make jokes about threatening the US.

Wolfgang Bohringer
01-30-2012, 08:19 PM
How did they even know what they had typed, and how did they know it was the people that were flying? That's what I would like to know, not that it's impossible...but the fact they connected the dots from a Twitter message, to British citizens, to add them to a "do not enter" list so quickly, I think shows the system is pretty advanced now.

Maybe Fatherland Security can help us find who uploaded the Huntsman video?

But its more likely that they use the same fact checkers that their fellow operation mockingbird agents at CNN and Fox used before they announced that Ron Paul supporters had uploaded the Huntsman video.

Cyberbrain
01-30-2012, 08:22 PM
Is it just me? Because I think it is just incredibly stupid to make jokes about threatening the US.

It was incredibly stupid. It was even more ridiculous to arrest people solely on poor word choice.

coffeewithchess
01-30-2012, 08:29 PM
Is it just me? Because I think it is just incredibly stupid to make jokes about threatening the US.

Did you read the article? Don't know their defense is true, but if so, it shows that the CIA/FBI whichever agency was behind this, could use some better modern day translators.
SUPPOSEDLY the word "destroy" America was meant as "party" or "have a good time" or something, according to the article. A quick Google search seemed to confirm it as well, but with the word "destroyed" instead: http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/d.htm

Also, the other quote was supposedly from an American television show, which I would think could be quickly verified.

Zarn Solen
01-30-2012, 08:29 PM
It means party. They were using slang.

alucard13mmfmj
01-30-2012, 08:31 PM
keeping us safe from partying Britians since 2001.

noxnoctum
01-30-2012, 08:32 PM
Ugh, this is very disheartening. Poor people.

Revolution9
01-30-2012, 08:32 PM
from comments;

I shouldn't have read this. I facepalmed myself so hard that I gave myself a headache. I mean... Like... Really... There's no words to describe how unbelievably STUPID that is. I really can't find any. You'd have to watch a 72-hour marathon of the three stooges just to get in the right mindset to try and grasp the idiocy of that situation. Does anyone really believe that that kind of attitude helps to keep them safe? I mean, really? You can't believe that and still be smart enough to breathe every once in a while.
- Daniel Tanure, Brazil, 31/1/2012 00:52

Rev9

ronpaulfollower999
01-30-2012, 08:41 PM
Come on now. Ron Paul supporters are supposed to be young and hip. :p

Destroy America= f things up= party

Clearly these silly Brits thought speech was protected in America.

The Goat
01-30-2012, 08:49 PM
Welcome to America!:(

Tyler_Durden
01-30-2012, 08:51 PM
They were either tracked my an NSA style word algorithm program or someone took their tweets too literal and "reported suspicious behavior"

Either is ridiculous......

I've destroyed the US several times over the years, especially in my 20's.

Oops, send me a postcard at GITMO.

wstrucke
01-30-2012, 08:53 PM
The headline was terribly inaccurate. If you read TFA they note the two separate tweets in question -- both are pretty innocuous. I fact, the Marylin one was a Family Guy quote and without someone making a huge leap from the first tweet would never be seen as anything remotely threatening. The first tweet referenced "destroy" which in this context is british slang for "party". Either way, someone with half a brain taking sixty seconds to look at this would have dismissed it out of hand.

The article quotes a federal agent as saying "you've really f***** up with that tweet boy". Honestly -- what a power hungry idiot.

CaptainAmerica
01-30-2012, 09:12 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kR8FofCHciE/TVWPzETkEkI/AAAAAAAABPk/byfoKCOljvc/s1600/tsa+nazi+777.jpg

_|_ ( -__-)_|_ you janet napolitano

liveandletlive
01-30-2012, 09:16 PM
they hate us for our freedoms

kylejack
01-30-2012, 09:18 PM
Is it just me? Because I think it is just incredibly stupid to make jokes about threatening the US.
It was figurative. I'm cooking steak and eggs for dinner tonight and I'm going to absolutely destroy that meal.

FrancisMarion
01-30-2012, 09:25 PM
These were foreigners using the word "destroy" as a verb to which our country is the subject.

What is the difference of someone south or north of the border speaking the same threats through a megaphone (regardless of slang) and then trying to enter the country?

Not sure I agree with previous sentiments on this one.

J_White
01-30-2012, 09:30 PM
Hey, at least they didn't just disappear.... - as yet !! maybe they would be on their way to a secret prison somewhere soon !!

Zarn Solen
01-30-2012, 09:39 PM
First of all, someone who is going to destroy to US, wouldn't say they would do it over a tweet. Second, it's been said that it was a term for partying several times in this thread and the context backs it up. Finally, anyone who wanted to do harm, would describe how they will destroy the US but again not a Twitter.

FrancisMarion
01-30-2012, 09:48 PM
Not a time for semantics: I'll take Webster's meaning.

You did not address my analogy. Do you not find it congruent?

Tod
01-30-2012, 09:51 PM
I've often wondered how close you could come....

Suppose you used words like "bombastic" in a sentence while talking to your friend at the security checkpoint.....

kylejack
01-30-2012, 09:52 PM
Not a time for semantics: I'll take Webster's meaning.

You did not address my analogy. Do you not find it congruent?
I don't see a problem with someone saying that in Canada or Mexico and then coming here, no.

Dr.3D
01-30-2012, 09:57 PM
Imagine if they had said they were going to get pissed. (drunk)

I'm sure those reading the message would think.... ah... they are going to get angry.

Sometimes I think it's better to just not have those social networking accounts. There are far too many people who would use your words against you.

Dr.3D
01-30-2012, 09:59 PM
I've often wondered how close you could come....

Suppose you used words like "bombastic" in a sentence while talking to your friend at the security checkpoint.....

Yeah, just like when you see your friend Jack on a plane.... you don't go up to him and say, "Hi Jack."

kylejack
01-30-2012, 10:01 PM
Marilyn Monroe is interred in a wall crypt, so you can't even "dig her up." The whole thing is silly.

GunnyFreedom
01-30-2012, 10:24 PM
:weep:

specialK
01-30-2012, 10:39 PM
Is it just me? Because I think it is just incredibly stupid to make jokes about threatening the US.

Aside from the slang intent people have already pointed out, I think people who comment like that and foreigners who continue to cross the US border in this day and age do it out of sheer naïveté. They really have no idea about the possible danger they could encounter.

Anti Federalist
01-31-2012, 07:11 AM
The government isnt watching everything you do, everything you say. Thats conspiracy theory nonsense.

I know, that's just a bunch of Alex Jones nonsense.

All is well...

Anti Federalist
01-31-2012, 07:14 AM
Hey, at least they didn't just disappear....

Not today anyway...

Give it a few more years.

We're in serious fucking trouble here, and no shit.

TheTexan
01-31-2012, 07:35 AM
I always get a good laugh when people here say we might be on a terrorist watchlist for our posts on RPF... but now I don't think that's so funny - it's probably true. :/

robert9712000
01-31-2012, 08:12 AM
Clearly you Ron Paul supporters have proven your kooks in seeing this as a laughable situation.Your not seeing what a threat they were.If they had been able to dig up Marilyn Monroe ,an American Icon.The damage it would have done to Americas safety ,by destabilizing its peaceful people would be unimaginable.The ramifications could have destroyed America.Our only choice as a peaceful Nation would have been to wage War against Britain to discourage any other terrorists from even pondering the idea of digging up any American Icons.

xFiFtyOnE
01-31-2012, 08:26 AM
Great...this is not helping my allready growing paranoia of using the internet.

FrancisMarion
01-31-2012, 08:44 AM
First, let me say this. Sometimes a stance can be the product of an argument, not the reasoning for having it.

While I am a firm believer of "sticks and stones" from the scope of the individual all the way to the scope of a country at large, I just can't get my gut around this one.

My point is there was a clear and blatant message spoken through the most public of mediums for anyone to see. The foreign traveler was not punished or arrested (I know you could argue this), instead they were sent home. I see no difference of a large crowd gathered in a place with one individual making threatening remarks. In these circumstances a justice of the peace would confront the person and most likely direct them away.

Maybe a better way to argue the stance is to say there is absolutely no way to classify tweets as privileged information. It is not a phone call or mail or email sent to a controlled set of eyes. It is a medium for, "Listen to what I have to say!". Discretion comes with age I suppose.

P.S I received a negative rep from someone for my posts on this thread. The person's reason is that I was a "troll". I guess it was given to me because he/she doesn't like a different point of view. Absurd and cowardly considering the person did not contribute to the thread. I find it unnerving that someone would find a person that is not lockstep as unfavorable. BUT, this person is obviously the anomaly considering the vast majority bright, mature, and knowledgeable people here.

kylejack
01-31-2012, 09:05 AM
My point is there was a clear and blatant message spoken through the most public of mediums for anyone to see. The foreign traveler was not punished or arrested (I know you could argue this), instead they were sent home. I see no difference of a large crowd gathered in a place with one individual making threatening remarks. In these circumstances a justice of the peace would confront the person and most likely direct them away.
It wasn't a threat. One was an idiom, and the other was a cartoon reference.


Maybe a better way to argue the stance is to say there is absolutely no way to classify tweets as privileged information. It is not a phone call or mail or email sent to a controlled set of eyes. It is a medium for, "Listen to what I have to say!". Discretion comes with age I suppose.
Tweets can be protected so that only followers can see the tweets.

WilliamC
01-31-2012, 09:22 AM
America will destroy itself soon enough with mass stupidity.

robert9712000
01-31-2012, 09:26 AM
First, let me say this. Sometimes a stance can be the product of an argument, not the reasoning for having it.

While I am a firm believer of "sticks and stones" from the scope of the individual all the way to the scope of a country at large, I just can't get my gut around this one.

My point is there was a clear and blatant message spoken through the most public of mediums for anyone to see. The foreign traveler was not punished or arrested (I know you could argue this), instead they were sent home. I see no difference of a large crowd gathered in a place with one individual making threatening remarks. In these circumstances a justice of the peace would confront the person and most likely direct them away.

Maybe a better way to argue the stance is to say there is absolutely no way to classify tweets as privileged information. It is not a phone call or mail or email sent to a controlled set of eyes. It is a medium for, "Listen to what I have to say!". Discretion comes with age I suppose.

P.S I received a negative rep from someone for my posts on this thread. The person's reason is that I was a "troll". I guess it was given to me because he/she doesn't like a different point of view. Absurd and cowardly considering the person did not contribute to the thread. I find it unnerving that someone would find a person that is not lockstep as unfavorable. BUT, this person is obviously the anomaly considering the vast majority bright, mature, and knowledgeable people here.

The problem is the way there going about trying to determine threats leaves no room for common sense.

A nine year old could have determined that they were no threat and that they didn't intend to destroy America or dig up Marilyn Monroe.A five minute discussion should have cleared it up not Holding them in a cell for 12 hours and searching there bags for spades and shovels.Then to top it off,after taking 12 hours to determine what a nine year old could in 2 minutes they still deny them access to the U.S.

I would Overlook them questioning the two, even though analysis of the twitter comment should have been enough,but there continually pushing harder and harder to enforce this Idea that Terrorism is so prevalent in the world that it gives them the right to not use common sense and to treat everyone as a criminal.Life is full of risk.I have a better chance of being struck by lighting than dieing by a terrorist. As bad as 911 was it doesn't justify them trying to make a America into a police state.

You need to decide whats more important too you safety or freedom.BTW no matter how much they try to control every aspect of your life it isn't going to guarantee you any more safety,but it will guarantee you less freedoms and liberty.

FrancisMarion
01-31-2012, 09:30 AM
"Tweets can be protected so that only followers can see the tweets."

If this was the case, then I agree.

Wolfgang Bohringer
01-31-2012, 09:43 AM
Its interesting that this story from yesterday is not on Drudge or anywhere in the U.S. media apparently?

When the operation mockingbird media switches tactics between blackout and in-your-face threats against the public it reminds me of exactly how they switch back and forth from media blackout to savage attacks on Ron Paul.

This was probably supposed to be a spectacle used to threaten everyone in the U.S. and show off their control grid. But I'm guessing at some point a decision was made early on and Drudge and all mockingbird assets were directed to stand down.

I'm also guessing that since they probably refrained from threatening their abductees with prison rape in this case before things got too far out of hand, that they may employ a new third tactic if this story gets in the media that we've seen them using lately with Ron Paul: "Oh he's so cute and funny with his one-liners. Be careful now you Ron Paulers and don't think you're going to get anywhere with this."

In this case it will be: "Oh those Brits are so cute with their vocabularies that are twice as big as ours. Now watch yourself from now on and don't think we're not going to cage you for 24 hours and send you back home and NEVER admit we are wrong anyway".

kylejack
01-31-2012, 09:46 AM
Its interesting that this story from yesterday is not on Drudge or anywhere in the U.S. media apparently?

Various US sources. https://www.google.com/search?q=british+travelers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&safe=images#q=british+travelers&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ezG&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=nwwoT8XeBqrM2AW7pMG3Ag&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CCsQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a012ba1cf347d49e&biw=1429&bih=879

FrancisMarion
01-31-2012, 09:48 AM
The problem is the way there going about trying to determine threats leaves no room for common sense.

A nine year old could have determined that they were no threat and that they didn't intend to destroy America or dig up Marilyn Monroe.A five minute discussion should have cleared it up not Holding them in a cell for 12 hours and searching there bags for spades and shovels.Then to top it off,after taking 12 hours to determine what a nine year old could in 2 minutes they still deny them access to the U.S.

I would Overlook them questioning the two, even though analysis of the twitter comment should have been enough,but there continually pushing harder and harder to enforce this Idea that Terrorism is so prevalent in the world that it gives them the right to not use common sense and to treat everyone as a criminal.Life is full of risk.I have a better chance of being struck by lighting than dieing by a terrorist. As bad as 911 was it doesn't justify them trying to make a America into a police state.

You need to decide whats more important too you safety or freedom.BTW no matter how much they try to control every aspect of your life it isn't going to guarantee you any more safety,but it will guarantee you less freedoms and liberty.

I agree with your second paragraph that the procedure was ludicrous. The security was obviously not thinkers nor trained to be so.

I am about as self-reliant as they come. I am decided. Never had a nanny, nor would I accept one.

I find that there is a big variable that is going unnoticed: They were not American citizens. While I agree about the concern for a police state, I am not concerned with this attitude at entry-points to our country.

TheTexan
01-31-2012, 11:33 AM
First, let me say this. Sometimes a stance can be the product of an argument, not the reasoning for having it.

While I am a firm believer of "sticks and stones" from the scope of the individual all the way to the scope of a country at large, I just can't get my gut around this one.

My point is there was a clear and blatant message spoken through the most public of mediums for anyone to see. The foreign traveler was not punished or arrested (I know you could argue this), instead they were sent home. I see no difference of a large crowd gathered in a place with one individual making threatening remarks. In these circumstances a justice of the peace would confront the person and most likely direct them away.

Maybe a better way to argue the stance is to say there is absolutely no way to classify tweets as privileged information. It is not a phone call or mail or email sent to a controlled set of eyes. It is a medium for, "Listen to what I have to say!". Discretion comes with age I suppose.

P.S I received a negative rep from someone for my posts on this thread. The person's reason is that I was a "troll". I guess it was given to me because he/she doesn't like a different point of view. Absurd and cowardly considering the person did not contribute to the thread. I find it unnerving that someone would find a person that is not lockstep as unfavorable. BUT, this person is obviously the anomaly considering the vast majority bright, mature, and knowledgeable people here.

Taken out of context, the statement could be cause for alarm. In context, it's obviously harmless.

When you have a police state combing through anything and everything you say, they are invariably going to take things out of context. This is the problem.

It's not the British dude's fault that his statement got taken out of context. You could make an argument that he 'should have known', but the end of that sentence is 'he should have known that the US government is a police state'.

TheTexan
01-31-2012, 11:43 AM
I find that there is a big variable that is going unnoticed: They were not American citizens. While I agree about the concern for a police state, I am not concerned with this attitude at entry-points to our country.

Well, the thing is, this happened one of two ways:
1) They were doing a standard background check on this British Dude as he came in, and found the offending tweet
2) OR, they came across the offending tweet using a keyword search or were otherwise tipped off to the tweet, and flagged this individual before he came in

My guess is 2. My point is, whatever process they used to 'catch' him, is also being used on American Citizens. They may not take action on it, but if it was enough to deny this guy entry, they probably do add us to a list.