home

Babies on the No-Fly List

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 09:36:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

How do the ticket agents keep a straight face when stopping parents from boarding a plane with an 11-month old because the baby's name matches one on the no-fly list? If we ever needed more reasons that these lists are feel-good measures that don't make us any safer, this article supplies it.

The TSA supposedly instructs ticket agents not to deny boarding to children. It happens anyway.

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.

< Bush's Mood Swings | Ed Cox Gears Up Campaign Against Jeanine Pirro >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Babies on the No-Fly List | 18 comments (18 topical)
    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    Baby suicude bombers fed nitro rocket fuel breast milk, part of the designerbreast milk program that was started at Darpa. Some of the technology leaked from the Darpa lab by a white supremetist wet nurse.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#2)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    Their names probably aren't on the list, they just have similar soundex codes. That means the net is cast even wider than just a name match. The whole name list idea is just a huge cluster-****.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#3)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    Ridiculous. But justifiable in the eyes of the wrong wingers. Better to be safe than free-oops I mean sorry.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    But justifiable in the eyes of the wrong wingers. Better to be safe than free-oops I mean sorry.
    What do you mean? It's a free police state.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    Better to be safe than free-oops I mean sorry
    That says it all. We will soon end up with the society we deserve as a bunch of cowards afraid to live free.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    I found myself on the no-fly list over the 4th of July holiday. Not that they suspected me of anything, but once your name comes up, the delay is in trying to get you cleared. The ticketing agent is unable to go further checking you in until they get clearance from the TSA. At least that's what I was told. So it's not that they suspect the babies, although it makes a great soundbyte.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    The ticketing agent is unable to go further checking you in until they get clearance from the TSA
    Think about this...the unelected officials at the TSA alone decide who flies and who doesn't. I personally find this unacceptable in a so-called free society. I'm a free man....who the heck is the TSA to tell a free man where he can and can't go.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    Ahh yes, the "there's no reason. sir, it's just our policy" & "we were just following orders" defense strikes again.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    who the heck is the TSA to tell a free man where he can and can't go.
    They're the people who are responsible for the security. I disagree with your analogy. Just because you are free doesn't mean you are free to go anywhere. You can't come in my house, you can be refused service in a bar, restaurant, or other place, you can't walk into a movie without paying etc... And just because you can't do those things it doesn't make you un-free.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    I see your point...airplanes are private property, technically they can refuse to accept your business for any reason. I still don't like what I've seen from the agency so far....quite an incompetent bunch.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    "I see your point...airplanes are private property, technically they can refuse to accept your business for any reason." Except it's not the airlines refusing to accept your business. It's a nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat telling you who you can and can't do business with.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    Good point scar, it's not the people who own the airplanes refusing admittance. I'll go a step further, with all the federal money given to the airlines, couldn't the planes themselves be considered taxpayer property in a way? Talk about the ultimate insult...Joe Taxpayer goes to the airport, somehow he's on the "do not fly" list, and he isn't allowed to fly on an airline he subsidizes. Jeez.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    Hey, it's a logical end to our inability to do reasonable profiling. I mean, if you think it makes as much sense to search a 70 year old black woman (last week at RDU) as a non-citizen Arabic appearing 25 year old, then why quail at a baby? -C

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    At least cliff threw in non-citizen, otherwise he'd be saying "search kdog" I love how the american, born and raised, who has arab features is supposed to sacrifice his rights for the cowardly sensibilities of the majority.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    Kdog, I'd like to rephrase...You can't come into my house uninvited....I dunno, I may invite you personally if you're out this way some time, even thought your politics are skewed a bit... ;-) Scar, I belive it is the airlines as well.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#16)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    Our national security depends on people who can't figure out that an infant might not be the same individual as named on some list of suspects. We are in truly, ocean deep sh**

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    but jen they could be killer babies trained in Iran.

    Re: Babies on the No-Fly List (none / 0) (#21)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:26 PM EST
    What happens if the babies start fighting back? will the bush government just shot all babies? and will the mothers be sent to prison for supporting terrorists?..sound nuts right but what is the government but one big nut case?..where is bin laden?

    Babies on the No-Fly List | 18 comments (18 topical)