Perhaps there is also a law for how long it takes until someone attempts to dismiss an argument by introducing a red herring.
I think untog brings up a good point, which is that we don't know what the interaction was. And we do know that what you say can cause you to be further questioned.
Of course, this harassment doesn't accomplish anything. If these people were truly a threat, the FBI would stake them out, the CIA would make them disappear or the NSA would hire them. Them being harassed at the border once more illustrates the weirdness of the TSA and border patrol. Their employees seem to suffer from the group delusion that harassing people will keep them from doing security research or being a danger to the United States. I don't understand their motivation. They give the US a bad name and they achieve nothing.
The actual security agencies know better than that. You may disagree with their practices and beliefs, but they at least give the impression of being mostly competent and efficient in achieving sensible goals. The current news around a 0-day cryptographic breakthrough being incorporated in Flame doesn't result in "I never expected that", but in "Go figure".
Working on encryption software : Being questioned at the border !:: Wearing a bikini : getting raped.
It's a lazy argument and he was right to point it out.
I think it's the best known example, and hence the best illustration, of 'blaming the victim'. I would have used that description, were it not for the fact that I couldn't remember the name of the fallacy at the time. I remembered it after a good night's sleep. If you wish to attribute my usage of an example to lazyness, so be it.
I wasn't going to let "You get temporarily detained at the border? Well, you must've said something that alerted them." slide and I don't see how it is logically different from "You got raped? Well, you must've worn something that aroused them."