Homeland Security Arrests Brit Tourists For ‘Dangerous’ Tweets

[Casius--J]

Pretty dumb things to tweet about to be honest but at the same time it's very creepy that they were monitored this way.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm just glad they put a stop to this. So many dead sex symbols have had their graves desecrated by the British this year alone and it's barely February. It has to stop.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The government wasn't scared of this guy. They just want to send a message.

"No revolutionary language on twitter."

 

[SuperFerret]

I get it.

 

[spidey-dude]

to be honest I think the scariest part is how off the beat homeland security were on this as mentioned before an analyst thinking this was a real threat shows how ineffective they are, and is worrying also that they spent time investigating and acting upon this...

 

[Yurka]

You say that now. First its reading tweets and texts, then its tapping phones, then its our mail, and our emails. Terrorists arent going to tweet their damn plans like a 14 year old girl who's going to her first party. Besides that tweet is so obviously sarcasm its not even funny. We pay intelligence analysts to analyze so we don't make these kind of dumb mistakes. Whoever is responsible for this should be fired.

Oh and fun fact, I know someone who works for homeland security as an intelligence analyst. His job is to analyze tips and threats that come in. According to him they receive hundreds of tips on any given day. And on any given day the tips are complete BS for one reason or another. It creates a situation where you have to read between the lines and use gut instinct to determine credible tips. All this spying on the public is worthless if the analysts do not feel its a credible threat. Case in point, 9/11. Your safety isn't determined by the spying and snooping our government does. No, on any given day the people of this country are kept safe by analysts guessing and taking chances. In the end they are more likely to act on a bogus threat like this one while a real threat slips through unnoticed. This is why we need people who are good at their job and have a feel for this type of work. Fire the people responsible for this.

I was speaking about post 9/11, obviously. I'm aware security agencies process thousands of threats daily. What I'm saying is, if there were a way to filter those threats more efficiently, practically and safely, by all means, take it (IMO)

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.
-Benjamin Franklin

Do some research on the McCarthy hearings to see what happens when we give the government that much power in the name of "protecting" us.

Worked for 11 years now hasn't it?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I was speaking about post 9/11, obviously. I'm aware security agencies process thousands of threats daily. What I'm saying is, if there were a way to filter those threats more efficiently, practically and safely, by all means, take it (IMO)



Worked for 11 years now hasn't it?

We really don't know how much death was prevented by taking away rights from hundreds of millions of Americans and killiong a hundred thousand of civilians overseas.

 

[Yurka]

We really don't know how much death was prevented by taking away rights from hundreds of millions of Americans and killiong a hundred thousand of civilians overseas.

Americans on American soil have been safe, which is the purpose for these various acts and tactics.

 

[NHawk19]

How many attacks like that occured prior to 9/11/01 on US soil? We're not really any safer now we just think we are because Homeland Security puts on a good show.

Every system has flaws. The media just puts a spotlight on a bunch of them following the incident and the government over-reacted as usual. Then when they're short on stories the media tests the system and broadcasts it's flaws again and people over-react. A couple years ago they even shipped radio active material in the name of journalism. The real security work needs to take place before the "potential" terrorist even sets foot in the airport. This is where the break down always is. Look at the shoe-bomber. His dad flat out called the CIA or FBI, to warn them and he was ignored.

How many real credible threats have you heard about in the past 10 years? Now how many of them involve TSA walking away from an entrance or someone ignoring evidence in place prior to a person flying? Most of the breakdowns dont require backscatter x-ray machines they involve people doing what they are supposed to do.

 

[spidey-dude]

exactly if they believed this was a credible threat why didnt they liase with their british counterparts and stop this man getting on a plane? god they cant even **** up correctly

 

[Destructus86]

Americans on American soil have been safe, which is the purpose for these various acts and tactics.

It's just an excuse the government uses to take away more and more rights.

you know...gotta keep us "safe"....

 

[Yurka]

How many attacks like that occured prior to 9/11/01 on US soil? We're not really any safer now we just think we are because Homeland Security puts on a good show.

Every system has flaws. The media just puts a spotlight on a bunch of them following the incident and the government over-reacted as usual. Then when they're short on stories the media tests the system and broadcasts it's flaws again and people over-react. A couple years ago they even shipped radio active material in the name of journalism. The real security work needs to take place before the "potential" terrorist even sets foot in the airport. This is where the break down always is. Look at the shoe-bomber. His dad flat out called the CIA or FBI, to warn them and he was ignored.

How many real credible threats have you heard about in the past 10 years? Now how many of them involve TSA walking away from an entrance or someone ignoring evidence in place prior to a person flying? Most of the breakdowns dont require backscatter x-ray machines they involve people doing what they are supposed to do.

I don't disagree with you, and the individuals are the ones who do the majority of the grunt work, I agree. However, my point was if there were some other type of "fail-safe" (for lack of a better word), that would allow agencies to direct their resources to certain alarms that were set off, whether that be buzz words though wire-taps, social media, e-mails etc.. I'm not against it. My conversations don't typically include matters of national security so I really don't feel threatened by such tactics.

It's just an excuse the government uses to take away more and more rights.

you know...gotta keep us "safe"....

If that means I have to show up to an airport 5 minutes earlier to get scanned by a body scanner (as well as everyone else), I'm fine with it. Even if it just gives a sense of security, I'd prefer more peace of mind over constant worry or paranoia.

 

[NHawk19]

I don't disagree with you, and the individuals are the ones who do the majority of the grunt work, I agree. However, my point was if there were some other type of "fail-safe" (for lack of a better word), that would allow agencies to direct their resources to certain alarms that were set off, whether that be buzz words though wire-taps, social media, e-mails etc.. I'm not against it. My conversations don't typically include matters of national security so I really don't feel threatened by such tactics.

If that means I have to show up to an airport 5 minutes earlier to get scanned by a body scanner (as well as everyone else), I'm fine with it. Even if it just gives a sense of security, I'd prefer more peace of mind over constant worry or paranoia.

I understand what you're saying but there are other ways to handle it rather than subjection people to unnecessary radiation and pulling out the guns. It would only take a couple minutes to google the tweet once it was flagged and find out the meaning. Just as it would only take a minute to search someone's name and find out if they're a suspect. It's all about communication.

This happened Monday when TSA didnt get their facts straight again. A little checking with people and talking and things improve. False alarms are far worse for credibility than the stopping of a terrorist can repair. What's worse is if it keeps happening, when the real deal takes place people will ignore them as the TSA who cried wolf.

 

[Wolfwood]

I have often said I'm going to destroy a night out...

And spidey-dude was never heard from again.

 

[Hotwire]

I was speaking about post 9/11, obviously. I'm aware security agencies process thousands of threats daily. What I'm saying is, if there were a way to filter those threats more efficiently, practically and safely, by all means, take it (IMO)



Worked for 11 years now hasn't it?

Once they have you bent over, they're just going to go deeper. That is, as long as your willing to take it. Read up on some of the stuff getting passed around congress. Like being able to hold you indefinitely without due process, without even formally charging you.

Yeah, this time it was some stupid British tourists, but how about this? They start snooping around here. They don't like what you post, and boom locked up. No Miranda, no trial, just prison, for as long as they want to keep you. But hey, you're safe from the terrorists.

The terrorists aren't trying to take away your freedom. They don't have to. All thy need to do is scare you, and you'll give it up willingly.

 

[Hotwire]

I don't disagree with you, and the individuals are the ones who do the majority of the grunt work, I agree. However, my point was if there were some other type of "fail-safe" (for lack of a better word), that would allow agencies to direct their resources to certain alarms that were set off, whether that be buzz words though wire-taps, social media, e-mails etc.. I'm not against it. My conversations don't typically include matters of national security so I really don't feel threatened by such tactics.




If that means I have to show up to an airport 5 minutes earlier to get scanned by a body scanner (as well as everyone else), I'm fine with it. Even if it just gives a sense of security, I'd prefer more peace of mind over constant worry or paranoia.

So willing to hand over your right to privacy. Where does it stop? Here you tell them they can tap your phone without probable cause. Next you would let them search your house? Maybe just call you in for questioning because some punk with the same name said something about a bomb in a joke. If I remember correctly, Pandora's box was really hard to close.

 

[Yurka]

Once they have you bent over, they're just going to go deeper. That is, as long as your willing to take it. Read up on some of the stuff getting passed around congress. Like being able to hold you indefinitely without due process, without even formally charging you.

Yeah, this time it was some stupid British tourists, but how about this? They start snooping around here. They don't like what you post, and boom locked up. No Miranda, no trial, just prison, for as long as they want to keep you. But hey, you're safe from the terrorists.

The terrorists aren't trying to take away your freedom. They don't have to. All thy need to do is scare you, and you'll give it up willingly.

Situations like this have occurred in this country for a century, and probably more. Red Scare, McCarthyism, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, all resulted in individuals being held indefinitely without habeus corpus. Does that make it right? Of course not. If there is probably cause however, and agencies have legitimate reason (factual) to believe that an individual is a threat to national security, then I'm in favor of detaining and questioning. Anything to keep the majority safe.

So willing to hand over your right to privacy. Where does it stop? Here you tell them they can tap your phone without probable cause. Next you would let them search your house? Maybe just call you in for questioning because some punk with the same name said something about a bomb in a joke. If I remember correctly, Pandora's box was really hard to close.

It's not as if there's a man monitoring every single phone call, text, e-mail, tweet etc. I make, let alone everyone in the nation. The manpower, and time behind such an operation would be colossal. Buzz-words, watch-lists and otherwise potential threats that have been investigated. There need to be limits, of course. As I mentioned previously some level of probable cause should be necessary in order to detain. Of course I'm not in favor of being detained for saying "I like chicken sandwiches" or something irrelevant on twitter or other electronic media, but if there is an individual on a watch list, or in some cases not, who says something like "9/11/12 we will destroy...." that should absolutely be investigated.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'm just glad they put a stop to this. So many dead sex symbols have had their graves desecrated by the British this year alone and it's barely February. It has to stop.

I KNOW RIGHT!

For revenge I'm going to go to England, and dig up Ian Fleming. It's not like MI-6 is going to snipe mnhareipghp[qheirpgqhpiqhewriprggqewhwflbjelbeejlwbfewkebgolahweipfhpwiegfpwhepgifhapwiehgipfahwpieghipwagheipgwehapi

 

[Yurka]

I understand what you're saying but there are other ways to handle it rather than subjection people to unnecessary radiation and pulling out the guns. It would only take a couple minutes to google the tweet once it was flagged and find out the meaning. Just as it would only take a minute to search someone's name and find out if they're a suspect. It's all about communication.

Since terrorists can be "sleepers", blend in universally, have no criminal records, have doctorate degrees, carry American passports and be American, a quick human "interrogation" doesn't cut it. A body-scan identities if an individual has a weapon i.e. dangerous, as does a name check....to an extent.

This happened Monday when TSA didnt get their facts straight again. A little checking with people and talking and things improve. False alarms are far worse for credibility than the stopping of a terrorist can repair. What's worse is if it keeps happening, when the real deal takes place people will ignore them as the TSA who cried wolf.

It could have been a bomb, every potential threat should be investigated. If that means, hiring more security agents, so be it, hell it would create some jobs!

 

[The Question]

Situations like this have occurred in this country for a century, and probably more. Red Scare, McCarthyism, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, all resulted in individuals being held indefinitely without habeus corpus. Does that make it right? Of course not. If there is probably cause however, and agencies have legitimate reason (factual) to believe that an individual is a threat to national security, then I'm in favor of detaining and questioning. Anything to keep the majority safe.

Define legitimate reason. Define propable cause. Who decided what those things mean? They sound like very nebulous terms.

There is a definition of a "legitimate reason" and "probable cause" for detaining someone already on the books.

It's called habeus corpus. It's called due process. It's called a trial before a jury of your peers with the right to legal counsel where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. These are things we have in place that define, very clearly, when it is and is not "legitimate" to take away someone's freedom.

If you take those away, then the only definition of "probably cause" is based on the opinions of individuals working in law enforcement. When that's the case, how do you prevent them from destroying people's lives needlessly? And how do you hold them accountable when they do?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Tim McVeigh had no prior criminal history, so it's hard to see these things coming.

 

[The Question]

Tim McVeigh had no prior criminal history, so it's hard to see these things coming.

Exactly.

The Unabomber lived completely off the grid, so it would have been impossible to track him like this anyway.

The fact is, stricter control by law enforcement, limiting people's rights, it doesn't keep us safe. Violent criminals will always find away to work around the system. Especially since killing people really doesn't take any effort at all, just willpower.

What these approaches to law inforcement do is make the government better able to protect it's own special interests, not keep people safe.

 

[Yurka]

Define legitimate reason. Define propable cause. Who decided what those things mean? They sound like very nebulous terms.

There is a definition of a "legitimate reason" and "probable cause" for detaining someone already on the books.

It's called habeus corpus. It's called due process. It's called a trial before a jury of your peers with the right to legal counsel where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. These are things we have in place that define, very clearly, when it is and is not "legitimate" to take away someone's freedom.

If you take those away, then the only definition of "probably cause" is based on the opinions of individuals working in law enforcement. When that's the case, how do you prevent them from destroying people's lives needlessly? And how do you hold them accountable when they do?

Destroys lives? Being questioned for some type of evidence found regarding a threat to national security, however small, destroys a life? What destroys lives is when there's one instance where someone goes unseen and takes out a plane, or a bus, or a building, or a group of people at a baseball game.

If theres no real evidence of a threat involved, as is the case with the individual in the original post, of course they will be released immediately. But if there's even a slight chance that implies potential terroristic activity, those individuals should be questioned, because who knows what happens if just one gets by.

 

[Yurka]

Exactly.

The Unabomber lived completely off the grid, so it would have been impossible to track him like this anyway.

Hence, tactics need to evolve and be implemented to prevent cases like that happening again, as I said before.

The fact is, stricter control by law enforcement, limiting people's rights, it doesn't keep us safe.

That's a fact?

Violent criminals will always find away to work around the system. Especially since killing people really doesn't take any effort at all, just willpower.

And resources.
There will always be homicides and murders, what the Patriot Act attempts to do is prevent the large scale attacks that can be thwarted and save lives.

 

[The Question]

Destroys lives? Being questioned for some type of evidence found regarding a threat to national security, however small, destroys a life? What destroys lives is when there's one instance where someone goes unseen and takes out a plane, or a bus, or a building, or a group of people at a baseball game.

If theres no real evidence of a threat involved, as is the case with the individual in the original post, of course they will be released immediately. But if there's even a slight chance that implies potential terroristic activity, those individuals should be questioned, because who knows what happens if just one gets by.

More than 150 people held in Guantanimo Bay were ultimately found to be completely innocent. And many of them are still there.

It's not about questioning. It's what comes after that, once we've given the government leeway to invade our privacy and suspend our legal rights.

You say that if there is no real evidence of terrorist ties, then the individual will be released immediately. What if the agent on scene simply doesn't believe them? What if he or she is convinced that this person is guilty, based on a "hunch?" Since we're already erroding the laws that define what qualifies as "real evidence" and define the process someone has to go through in order to hold someone for questioning, then how do you prevent that? How do you prevent that power from being abused and misused?