General discussion

Our Keystone Feds

'No-fly list' keeps infants off planes

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the United States because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government's "no-fly list."

It sounds like a joke, but it's not funny to parents who miss flights while scrambling to have babies' passports and other documents faxed.

The government's lists of people who are either barred from flying or require extra scrutiny before being allowed to board airplanes grew markedly since the September 11, 2001, attacks.


Me thinks profiling would probably help reduce problems like this. What do you think?
Discussion is locked
Reply to: Our Keystone Feds
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Our Keystone Feds
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) i agree but the pc crowd says not nice to profile
- Collapse -
Sarah Zapolsky and her husband had a similar experience last month while departing from Dulles International Airport outside Washington. An airline ticket agent told them their 11-month-old son was on the government list.

They were able to board their flight after ticket agents took a half-hour to fax her son's passport and fill out paperwork.

Wouldn't security be able to figure out by looking at the 11 month old baby that he wasn't a terrorist? Why wait for paperwork?

Profiling might work, if they said that nobody under the age of 2 would be classified as a terrorist threat. Wink
- Collapse -
Why stop at 2?

Are you saying they should continue to feel up old white women to be sure they're not wearing a c4 brassiere? Should they comtinue to strip search old men that set off the metal detectors with their hip replacements? How about they just start running all young arab males through the security wringer? Me thinks that would be more effective at staving off another terrorist attack by young arab males.

- Collapse -
running all young arab males through the security wringer?

You wouldn't have caught Timothy McVeigh

- Collapse -
Not a very good argument ...

... that's like saying that if you have an excellent composite sketch of a serial rapist in NYC, looking at every male that resembles the sketch closely wouldn't have caught another rapist in the area. That is probably true, but hardly relevant.

- Collapse -
Mc Veigh wasn't on an airplane, duh.

Would you put it past a terrorist to load up a kiddie with explosives? Or plant a weapon on the kid?

I'd check everyone if possible.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) What did he fly into? What plane did he hihack?
- Collapse -
That would work.

We all know that terrorists are too dumb to realize that all arab-looking males are being searched. They'd never think of using less arab-looking males, or even females!


- Collapse -
Are you suggesting...

they might goes as far as using old white ladies with walkers to be less arab looking? Maybe old black men with hip replacements.

- Collapse -

not the two examples you give, but people outside the narrow profile you suggest, yes.

Studies show that when law enforcement concentrates more on profiles and less on behavior that effectiveness drops.

We don't care what terrorists look like, we just want to stop their terrorist activities.


- Collapse -
As suggested elsewhere ...

... profiling done right, is a fluid method. For now, in the US, Arab males is a very good, high percentage, start.

- Collapse -
Arab males

I agree that is a good start but on the subject of kids: Don't forget the cute little Vietnamese boys and girls who walked up to our GI's with shoeboxes full of "gifts". These children were sacrificed for their COUNTRY. Now,throw RELIGION into the mix.If a terrorist believes he will reach the "promised land" by sacrificing himself, he must believe he is "caring" for his family by including them on his journey.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) OJT - Common Sense 101
- Collapse -
Yeah, it's the lack of profiling

that is keeping babies off airplanes. That's the reason.


- Collapse -
I agree that profiling would...

be a better and less costly answer.

I can't go so far as to find any anger at the screeners or other public employees for following the letter of the regulations BECAUSE our media is so intent on finding and fixing blame for everything that happens. The CAUSE of such should be placed exactly where it belongs, and that is ON THE MEDIA and the "modern journalists" who do not report so much as invent the news.

IF something did happen on one of those flights and the media discovered that "a passenger" whose name was on the list had been allowed to fly the poor screener who allowed the baby on the flight would be flogged and persecuted by the media in their desire to "file a story". The media circus would be much on the order of that of the Abu Ghraib "torture" and suggestions that the military was corrupt and full of such people rather than the facts that it was already under investigation and that those people represent a miniscule percentage of the military personnel.

Until public employees such as the screeners and military are themselves protected from media abuse we can expect to see them continue to engage in what appears on the surface to be idiocy but in reality is a CYA technique--better safe than sorry.

CNET Forums