It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: One Year Old Baby Denied Flight Due To "No-Fly List"

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
A one year old baby girl was prevented from boarding a plane because her name was similar to that of some one on the "No-Fly list". The infant was denied a flight from Phoenix to Washington at Thanksgiving. "I completely understand the war on terrorism, and I completely understand people wanting to be safe when they fly. But focusing the target a little bit is probably a better use of resources." said the mother of the girl. This family is not alone in their ordeal, an 11-month old boy was also refused access to flights.
 



news.yahoo.com
The Transportation Security Administration, which administers the lists, instructs airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 — or select them for extra security checks — even if their names match those on a list.

But it happens anyway. Debby McElroy, president of the Regional Airline Association, said: "Our information indicates it happens at every major airport."

The TSA has a "passenger ombudsman" who will investigate individual claims from passengers who say they are mistakenly on the lists. TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said 89 children have submitted their names to the ombudsman. Of those, 14 are under the age of 2.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You have got to ask yourself why this serious misuse of information and a greivous waste of resources is allowed to occur.

Just who in their right mind would deny an 11-month old baby boy from boarding a plane? Even if the youngster was called Osama Bin Laden you still would have to be an ignoramus to deny him access to the plane.

This, and the baring of Senator Ted Kennedy, just goes to highlight how inappropriately general lists such as the "No-Fly list" really are. Its quite humorous actually, but probably not to their parents who miss flights because of it.

[edit on 15/8/05 by subz]




posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
If true, perhap's the Bush crew can't conceive age differences before saying no.

Dallas



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Hey hey, trust me, a 1 year olds diaper is worse then any chemical or biological weapon you can imagine!

Pun aside, shows how people are numbers and names instead of actual people. If they'd do more then crossreference a list of names and actualy check the real stats on a person, alot of misshaps and bad blood could be avoided.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I get it now...Maybe they're afraid he could be another "mental midget"


You cant be too careful nowadays. You know, of terror



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Oh yeah, a one year old is a really dangerous thing.... just think of how much C4 you can hide in that diaper!

Anyway, back in reality, the idea that this is happening is just another illustration of how little "security" we have actually gotten because of these anti-terrorism actions. How can people even feel safe when an infant is treated as a criminal just because of a name similarity? I wonder if any of the five men with the last name of Hitler (which I found through a yahoo people search with all of the US) are ever denied boarding access to a plane because of their name similarities? What about the guy with the last name of BinLaden living in Massachussets? All of these people are probably law abiding citizens, who wish nothing more than their guaranteed pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, yet they would be unable to board a plane, because they, unfortunately, share their names with people who have committed atrocities.

I'm glad my last name isn't McVey.

Another step closer to 1984. I might as well get my wall cleared off for the installation of the Big Brother monitor.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
This is a result of the liberal aversion to profiling. Everyone decrying profiling should praise this and be willing to sleep in the bed in which they made.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
dj, are you serious?

The people calling for profiling in response to the war on terror are not for the most part liberal. They are mostly Bush supporters, but I guess Bush can be considered liberal in most respects.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Hey thats a great idea...
a new terrorism tool, it won't kill you but it will certainly keep you away.

Infiltrate anything to cause mayhem and destruction..baby sneaks into an insurgent meeting drops its business and everyone tears out of their forgetting why they were meeting in the first place after the stench prevades their whole being.



Seriously though, hasn't the joke gone on long enough... a baby not allowed to fly...surely the people at the airport would realise that this tiny warm bundle of innocent being was not a terrorist and allow them to board...
you know its sounding more and more as the screws tighten on thse issues like history repeating itself.

The jews had to wear the star of david and were refused admittance and not allowed to do lots before they were decimated.

Nowadays that star of david is a nametag like Muhammed Akbar (if he exists I do apologise for using his name) or Ahmed Mustapha. hes a terrorist for sure that one, just look at his arab name... *sarcasm



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Jamuhn, I think you missed my point...if you can't profile, you can't say a baby probably isn't a terrorist anymore than you can say a middle easterner may be a terrorist...the lack of the ability to profile caused this incident IMHO.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
You know what would be hilarious? Omar Bakri Mohammed should check into a hotel under the alias "George W. Bush" and then the flying experience for all George Bush's in the U.S would be ruined
Now THAT would be funny



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Ahhh, very good dj. My apologies. But, I think this says more about the individuals who chose not to follow the procedures of TSA, rather than some liberal conspiracy.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This is a result of the liberal aversion to profiling. Everyone decrying profiling should praise this and be willing to sleep in the bed in which they made.

I suppose the fact that no liberal in their right mind would allow the "No-Fly list" in the first place doesnt factor into who's to blame for this debacle? Maybe if "conservatives" would realise that a terrorist will always use an alias any way we wouldnt have this problem.

"Hello Osama Bin Laden, whats the purpose of your visit to the United States? Business or pleasure?"
"A bit of both actually, I like my job"

Like that is ever going to happen!

If you know some one specifically who shouldnt fly in the United States wouldnt a specific ban be the logical thing to do? Wouldnt that be just as effective as a "no-fly list"? Minus the inconvenience to the thousands of innocent people and the 14 under 2's



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
...this really has me wondering; "Will I get into America next time I try?"

I've already spoke out about the War in Iraq (was fine on Afganistan), made my views on Israel and the Neo-Cons clear. Surely I've annoyed them more than the one-year old ever could have?



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Infant'a Name to Remain on No-Fly-List



That's because experts and officials say there's no way the toddler's name will be taken off the federal no-fly list - even after he and another tot made headlines for being stopped as potential terror threats.

"His name is the same or similar to someone on the no-fly list," said Ann Davis, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, explaining that even though a baby is not a threat, someone out there with the same name is, and the name must be kept on the list.


I think I'd change the kid's name.

And is it just me or doesn't it seem we could make this no-fly-list a bit more intelligent? Like say... exclude infants or anyone under 10? Or add the baby's identity so that when it pops up, it shows that there's a person born in 2004 who is NOT a terrorist? I think we have the technology!



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
There are guidlines so that the list is not applied to under 12's but the airports are ignoring it.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join